A question for HRC supporters ...

[NanceGreggs]

Will you NOT vote for the Democratic candidate in 2016 if that candidate turns out to be someone other than Hillary?

We've all seen the "I won't vote for HRC if she's the nominee" posts. Are there any Hill supporters who plan to NOT vote for whoever the Dem candidate winds up being, even if he/she was not their first choice?

[seveneyes]

1. When the stripes fade

[hlthe2b]

5. One of the most beautiful animals on earth.... your point?

[Arkansas Granny]

15. Oh, please. We aren't going to start the PUMA shit again, are we?

After the 2008 primaries, it was like a witch hunt around here with accusations of PUMA being leveled at many posters who were judged as not showing the proper enthusiasm for the Obama candidacy. It was pretty ugly.

[seabeyond]

26. ya. didnt pay attention to the shit then. seeing it now and smells just as offensive. nt

[FarPoint]

106. Exactly.....

That PUMA phase was a fair game in the Primaries....we all sucked it up and voted for Obama.

[patricia92243]

125. I give up - I've googled it and read this whole thread trying to figure out what PUMA means. n/t

[SidDithers]

128. Party Unity My Ass...

basically, what the anti-Hillary posters at DU are saying right now. If Hillary is the nominee, party unity my ass, they ain't voting for her.

Sid

[BainsBane]

171. You know

I couldn't figure it out because it made no sense in the context of this current election cycle. Thanks for explaining it.

[In_The_Wind]

209. Thanks Sid ... "Party Unity My Ass..."

128. Party Unity My Ass...

basically, what the anti-Hillary posters at DU are saying right now. If Hillary is the nominee, party unity my ass, they ain't voting for her.

Sid

[stevenleser]

210. So far, I haven't seen or heard of one Hillary supporter this cycle say they wont

support the nominee if it's someone other than Hillary.

And the PUMA stuff in 2008? Let's just say I saw more Republicans and trolls saying that back then than actual Democrats.

[AtomicKitten]

2. spoiler alert

[seabeyond]

9. so you throw up a stupid puma gif?

[hrmjustin]

10. What point are you making?

[AtomicKitten]

13. It's deja vu.

What is happening now happened in 2008. Many of the HRC supporters are becoming obnoxiously agitated, demanding loyalty oaths, and working themselves into a blather. With any serious competition, the Hillary campaign is guaranteed to do/say whatever it takes including some unsavory tactics like before, adding further fuel to the fire and further agitating supporters. The campaign will degenerate into a food fight and if/when Hillary loses the primary, there is little doubt those emotionally invested at that level will revert to what Chris Hayes calls the demi-glace of crazy bitter.

Or she runs unopposed and those Democrats shut out of the process vis a vis no candidate their conscience allows them to vote for will either vote third party or write-in a candidate for president and vote D down ballot or, worse, stay home. I do not believe Hillary can win the general election. If it is Hillary against Jeb Bush, Bush will come across as the reasonable one simply by virtue of demeanor.

[hrmjustin]

16. Wow! You think that little of us?

[AtomicKitten]

18. Not of all of you, of course. The demi-glace.

[hrmjustin]

20. of course.

[PosterChild]

93. what is meant by demi-glace?

I searched for it and didn't find a meaning that seems to fit the context.

[orpupilofnature57]

32. Bush will use an arsenal of questions that can't be answered.

[R B Garr]

35. Translation: You would rather have another Bush in the White House

because of your "conscience."

Just this morning I heard some pundits lamenting Hillary's baggage about the past, yet there was little mention of the Bush baggage. It's hard to believe Democrats would rather see another Bush in the White House.

[AtomicKitten]

36. sorry, you are not allowed to put words in my mouth

thanks for playing, though

[R B Garr]

47. Quote from your post: "...those Democrats shut out of the process vis a vis

no candidate their conscience allows them to vote for will either vote third party or write-in a candidate for president.."

[AtomicKitten]

59. If you're worried, get a better candidate.

Last edited Sun Apr 19, 2015, 05:09 PM - Edit history (1)

[Thinkingabout]

70. Get a better candidate to run, dont complain you don't have a better candidate unless

You don't have someone else to run.

[R B Garr]

99. I'm worried now? Where did that come from? I was responding to your

comment about Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush and not voting because of your "conscience" about Hillary. That doesn't really make sense if the alternative is another Bush in the White House. That's what I was talking about.

[orpupilofnature57]

39. Your not listening .

[R B Garr]

46. Quote from the post: "...those Democrats shut out of the process vis a vis

no candidate their conscience allows them to vote for will either vote third party or write-in a candidate for president..."

[onehandle]

42. Such BS. The agitation is 100% from the 'anyone but Hillary' ones.

And this is only in little online forums. I hear none of this angst from liberal friends I have in the real world who have doubts about Hillary.

You're projecting.

[AtomicKitten]

44. riiiiiight, just like last time

[Agschmid]

117. Yup.

I was amazed at how all my co-workers posted support for her on the day she launched... she's got some major backing, except on DU.

[brooklynite]

150. Actually, I suspect she has major support on DU as well...

...not everyone chooses to step into candidate flame wars, and the "I'll never vote for Hillary" chest-thumping is probably a handful of the assembled.

[zeemike]

107. That is the way I see it too.

Hillary is not the sure thing some people believe her to be.

[rhett o rick]

48. More importantly what point is the OP trying to make? nm

[hrmjustin]

51. To ask Clinton supporters if we would support a nominee if it is not HRC.

Reasonable question.

[MADem]

54. Amazing how many non-HRC supporters have to stop by to "pee on the tree."

They can't help themselves....!

[rhett o rick]

58. She is making an implication that apparently she won't make directly.

Plez see post #55 below:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6533479

[hrmjustin]

63. And if O'Malley won and I announced I would not support him how would you feel?

[rhett o rick]

110. The big difference is that some people said years ago that they will not support

those Democrats that betrayed the Party and country. Why choose her when she has so many of her own party so set against her. If you will support any Democratic nominee, then why not pick one that has the backing of most of the Party?

[hrmjustin]

111. With respect that is not what i asked you. how would you feel if I pulled a puma act?

[rhett o rick]

116. That's not what is happening here. I don't trust that she won't stab us in

the back again. If you want to risk a loss to Bush, that's up to you.

[hrmjustin]

120. I am giving you a hypothetical. if you don't wish to answer that ok.

But if HRC wins the nomination I hope everyone here votes for her. If they don't that is their right but they can't advicate for third party candidate here on DU after it is clear age hss won.

And for the record if o'Malley won I would vote for him.

[rhett o rick]

122. Then think about supporting O'Malley. Why risk Clinton losing to Bush? nm

[hrmjustin]

123. Because he is boring and won't win.

[rhett o rick]

124. If you are willing to risk losing with Clinton, you have no one (no Nader) to blame when she loses.

You know she has problems from the Left.

[hrmjustin]

126. O'Malley is a bigger risk.

Too unkown and we have no idea if he can handle the media scrutiny.
.
the left will vote for Hillary.

[rhett o rick]

129. You are taking a big risk. nm

[hrmjustin]

130. Everything is risk.

She will have to prove she can do it. I think she can.

[Tarheel_Dem]

148. Poll: Most Democrats Are Ready For Hillary

Ariel Edwards-Levy
Posted: 04/13/2015 6:27 pm EDT

WASHINGTON -- Democrats are largely happy to have Hillary Clinton as their all-but-anointed frontrunner, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll conducted Friday through Sunday.

A 57 percent majority of Democrats and independents who lean towards the Democratic Party say Clinton, who announced her candidacy on Sunday, is their preferred 2016 nominee, while just a quarter would rather rally behind someone else. And most expect her to succeed -- 80 percent say it's at least somewhat likely that she'll win the Democratic nomination, and 77 percent think that she'll win the presidency.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/13/hillary-clinton-poll_n_7058088.html

"Why choose her when she has so many of her own party so set against her." Can you quantify this statement? If polling is to be believed, you're in a very serious minority.

[NanceGreggs]

175. At this juncture ...

... HRC has "the backing of most of the Party".

So what's your point?

[okasha]

177. "Most of the Party'

does not live on DU. "Most of the Party" has never heard of DU.

We do not need a candidate that pleases a fraction of a small group of internet posters. We need a candidate who can kick ass, win, drive the Republicans out of Washington, and begin to repair the damage they've done.

I do not support taking any Democratic or otherwise liberal Senator out of the Senate. They're needed right where they are.

[rhett o rick]

197. If you want a candidate that will kick Republicon asses, why would you choose one that

sided with the Republicons in 2002 in the most important decision of the century? She turned her back on us and helped, actually helped sell the Republicon lies. I want someone that I can trust to kick Republicon asses.

Remember 2000 when the Party decided to run Gore and Liarman? No kicking Republicon ass there. You are looking to do the same with another DLC'er in Clinton. It's time for a progressive.

[NanceGreggs]

68. There is no "implication" here.

I asked a direct question which requires a simple yes-or-no answer.

I am rather startled by your obvious confusion.

[rhett o rick]

109. Oh Plez!

[longship]

81. More idiocy from both sides.

I have not made a decision for 2016 because:

1. It's nearly 19 fucking months until the election.

2. I don't know who the hell will be running. (And neither does anybody else here.)

3. I can't get excited about a candidate until I know more about the whole deal.

So, from my perspective, all these baiting posts just make DU suck more. Some people are acting like two year olds.

[Hobo]

222. Amen brother/sister

Hobo

[McCamy Taylor]

3. Yellow dog. I will vote for the Dem most likely to win the general.

I will also do my best to make sure that the GOP does not pull a CREEPy Pat Buchanan/Nixon style 1972 steal by tricking our party into nominating someone who can not win the general.

[okaawhatever]

71. +10,000 But I will vote for the nominee nt

[RobertEarl]

4. Of course they will

They are not PUMAs.

The real problem is how to motivate the 70% who are only a little interested.

And once motivated, turn out to vote for the democrat and not the republican.

[hrmjustin]

6. I will vote for the Democratic Nominee as I have always done.

I have always voted Democratic and never third party for any office.

[McCamy Taylor]

25. Ditto.

[orpupilofnature57]

37. Jarvis Tyner ,otherwise ALL Dems since 1975 .

[FLPanhandle]

89. Agree. I will never be a Republican enabler

Vote for and debate for whomever you want in the primaries.

In the general election, you are either a democrat or a republican/republican enabler.

[seabeyond]

7. i am not a clinton supporter. i will vote any dem. supreme court matters. nt

[DURHAM D]

8. I will vote for the Democrat who wins the primary.

I will not vote third party no matter who the Republicans manage to recruit.

PS I just discovered that John Anderson is still alive.

[Arkansas Granny]

11. I supported Hillary in 2008, but when she lost in the primaries,

I switched my support because I knew from the start that I would vote for the Democratic nominee.

I support Hillary in the upcoming election. However, should if she is not nominated, I will support the Democratic nominee.

The thought of Republicans controlling the White House and both houses of Congress sends a cold chill down my spine.

[DURHAM D]

17. We have a lot of

Paulites
Libertarians
Anarchists
Tea Baggers
Trolls

They are not Democrats. After the primary is over they will return to their usual spots or just stick around and tell us women folk how to think/behave/vote. No idea what we will do without them.

They will continue to bash Obama.

[cascadiance]

29. And the frustrating thing about their bashing Obama is that it obscures legitimate criticism...

... of Obama over issues like the TPP, drone strikes, domestic spying, etc.

If we criticize him over legitimate issues that he's sacrificing Democratic Party values in doing so, we get lumped in with the Republican bashers calling him a socialist and fascist in the same stupid poster they hold at their rallies.

It's hard to then have those criticisms heard, because they get dismissed along with the real crap of bashing that legitimately gets dismissed.

Republicans have succeeded in that strategy of obscuring the corporatist mission of screwing over the rest of us with corporatist agendas that they've gotten Obama to support, but which gets defended by some who don't look at the details because they are just trying to "protect the president" from Republican crap.

Not sure why Obama is going down these paths that should be criticized, but aren't sufficiently, but I'm concerned that this kind of "Third Way" agenda that he's working on will also be done by the next president, unless we make sure we nominate someone with true populist loyalties, and not professed ones that aren't truly held. Because we'll see a repeat of this sort of thing happening in a future administration as well, when anyone legitimately trying to criticize Hillary Clinton as president will be lumped together with Rush Limbaugh crazies holding "Hillary is a feminazi" signs then.

[OnyxCollie]

85. To some here, legitimate criticism like the TPP, drone strikes, domestic spying, etc.

IS "bashing" Obama.

They refer to themselves as "Democrats."

[treestar]

14. No. You are right

in that it is only the unit-Hillary camp that makes that threat.

[cali]

19. It's easy to say yes from the comfortable position that HRC supporters are in

She will almost surely be the nominee.

But I remember 2008 and a boatload of her supporters, including quite a few here, saying they wouldn't vote vote for anyone but Clinton.

PUMA ring a bell?

[hrmjustin]

21. We have all told you what we would do.

Do you doubt our word?

[TheKentuckian]

180. Collectively? Absolutely. Those who have hooked and crooked the party to the right for a generation

will scurry along if they actually had to bite the bullet and go against their corporate, warmongering, surrvilence state enabling mess they have foisted on the party and the nation for years was under any actual threat.

Even when just pressed with a different face for the same policies some went apocalyptic, if presented with an opposing ideology the conservatives would do what they have done which is vote for Reagan, the Bush's, or the Republicans.

Certainty, they have won and will continue to set the agenda is the source of their party loyalty and little else but disdain for their theocratic and bigoted ideological cousins.

[hrmjustin]

182. Huh?

[TheKentuckian]

191. You asked if the word was doubted. Speaking for myself about the collective supporters of

the Turd Way, no I don't believe them and have no reason to.

Some of the individuals? Certainly, but the legion? Fuck no. If they were worthy of such trust they would not have fostered the distortions for decades in the first place otherwise.

[hrmjustin]

195. Oh. i guess we are done here.

Take care of yourself.

[NanceGreggs]

23. We're talking about 2016 ...

... not 2008.

If you have seen any HRC supporter here claiming that they won't vote for the (D) candidate unless it is Hillary, please feel free to post the links thereto.

[AtomicKitten]

49. like I said, deja vu

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=363x16

Link is to a thread where DU'ers declared they cannot/will not vote for Obama. Some have been tombstoned, some have changed their names and are still here.

[NanceGreggs]

60. In case you haven't noticed ...

... we're discussing the 2016 election, not 2008 nor any other year.

If you have seen posts from HRC supporters stating that they will not vote (D) in next year's election unless Hillary is the candidate, please feel free to post links thereto.

[AtomicKitten]

73. But that's my point.

Those declarations are scheduled to appear if/when Hillary loses the primary.

Of course, that would only happen if a viable candidate runs, specifically Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth would give Hillary a run for her money which is why Hillary has met with her privately soliciting an endorsement and wrote a glowing (reads butt-kissing) OP on Elizabeth Warren for Time Magazine. Elizabeth is obviously giving the Clinton campaign heartburn, justifiably so.

This puts the Clinton campaign between a rock and a hard place. If Elizabeth runs, it's on. If not, the coronation is guaranteed to come across as a lead balloon to those not enamored with the Clinton candidacy.

We shall see.

[NanceGreggs]

80. If declarations are "scheduled" to appear ...

... at a certain time, why were the "I won't for HRC no matter what" folks weighing-in before anyone even announced?

"Elizabeth is obviously giving the Clinton campaign heartburn, justifiably so."

I sincerely doubt that the Clinton campaign is suffering heartburn from someone who isn't even running.

[McCamy Taylor]

24. They voted for Obama. At least all the ones I know did. And he was elected, so I am pretty sure

that the Unity Democratic Convention was a big success.

[morningfog]

62. We'll Hillary did say McCain was better experienced than Obama.

Remember rht Hillary supporters? While you bemoan criticisms of Hillary now and even those who say they won't vote for her. Hillary once said that the republican nominee would be better than Obama.

Think about that.

[sufrommich]

66. I was here,a Clinton supporter,and there was no

" boatload" of supporters who refused to support Obama.I distinctly remember most Hillary supporters accepting Obama as the nominee and supporting him throughout the Presidential election.

[cali]

67. I didn't say the "boatload" was here. I said there were quite a few here. and there were.

I'm sure most of them voted for him, just as most here who oppose her will vote for her.

Call it the rhetoric of frustration, but yeah, many HRC supporters here at DU engaged in strong language against Obama.

[StevieM]

118. I was one of the people who babbled something about not voting for Obama.

But by the time the Convention rolled around I was a supporter, and I enthusiastically voted for him on Election Day. So did most of Hillary's voters.

It's true that Obama didn't get 100% of the Democratic vote, but the same can be said of Mike Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry. Overall, he did very well among Democrats, both in turnout and in percentage of votes won.

I've warmed up to Obama considerably since then. I was thrilled when he nominated Sotomayer to the high court (and she has been spectacular IMO). By the time he got the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) passed I was a huge supporter of his.

I think the point to the OP is that it is most Hillary supporters would vote for Martin O'Malley or Elizabeth Warren if they were the Democratic nominee.

If Hillary is our candidate I hope that the party will coalesce around her. And if she is not, then I hope we will coalesce around whoever wins the nomination, just like we did in 2008.

[ND-Dem]

173. I remember too. Ironic.

[leftofcool]

187. This is not 2008, Cali

[MineralMan]

22. I will vote for the Democratic nominee in the GE.

Not only that, I will work very hard to help elect that candidate. I expect it to be HRC, but if it's someone else, I'll devote all my efforts to help get that nominee elected.

I've not heard anyone say otherwise among those who currently support Clinton, and don't expect to.

I've heard lots of people say they won't vote for Clinton under any circumstances, though.

[daredtowork]

133. Cali makes the crucial point, though

Clinton supporters have nothing at stake when they say "I will vote" for the Democratic nominee - because that nominee will most assuredly be Clinton. It would be interesting to see how they would actually behave if someone else won the nomination at the last minute. Would there be a new PUMA-esque movement?

But perhaps you're right: it may be easier for a Democrat to compromise to the left than to the right.

[sufrommich]

136. There was never really an old PUMA "movement".

It was a few disgruntled and deranged Hillary voters and a whole shitload of Rush dittoheads,he never made any secret of his encouragement to republicans to join the PUMA's and inflate their numbers. The vast,vast majority of people who voted for Hillary in the primaries,voted for Obama in the presidential election. The constant citing of PUMAs on DU is disingenuous at best.

[murielm99]

198. I agree.

I made no secret of being a Hillary supporter over Obama. When Obama won the nomination, I went to work for him, putting my support for Hillary Clinton behind me.

There were a number of DUers who could not accept that. I remember people trying to mass alert on me, trying to get me banned, and accusing me of being a PUMA, when I did not even understand the term.

I had every right to be critical of Obama's campaign before he won. In real life, we activists discussed things and disagreed with much more grace and civility than anyone ever did on DU.

If Hillary wins the nomination, I will not treat people here the way I was treated. If there are problems, it will be up to the owners of this site and to the juries to sort things.

[McCamy Taylor]

27. Maybe most "HRC Supporters" are really "Democratic Victory in 2016 Supporters."

That would be me. I have no personal stake in this. If HRC decided not to run and Al Gore stood up and said "Re-elect me!" I would jump on his bandwagon.

That said, it would be nice to finally add a woman to the line up of POTUS. Not required but a nice bonus.

[NanceGreggs]

31. Well, that's my thinking as well.

I'll be voting for the Democrat in 2016 no matter who it is. My preference is Hillary - but if it turns out to be someone else, they'll have my support and my vote.

[calimary]

94. That would be me. I vote for Supreme Court pickers.

I do happen to believe that, realistically and for the sake of practicality, HRC has the best shot at winning. Over anybody. And I think there's an unseen groundswell of American women who simply want to see a woman seated behind the Resolute Desk. I have already heard plenty of "it's OUR turn now." I've even heard it from GOP women. There seems to be this perception about wanting to be part of history next time if they think there'll be a next time. Especially if they weren't in on the most recent one because they went with mccain or wrongney four years later.

I think she's gonna be it. But I'm damned if I'M gonna sit home and pout and sulk because I didn't get MY candidate, if someone else winds up being our nominee - the way some people are threatening to do here. I'm voting "D." From the top all the way to the bottom. If it isn't Hillary Clinton, FINE. WHOEVER the Dem is, you better believe I'm THERE! I'm mainly invested in keeping the White House. And I'm sorry to have to say this, but I hear WAY too much of that kind of prediction coming mainly from the "I don't like Hillary" camp. FUCK THAT SHIT. Just FUCK THAT SHIT. They claim it's far more important to stay home and pout and sulk and ruin it for all the rest of us because doing so will lead directly to handing over the White House to the GOP. And to the pouters and sulkers I'd say - IS THAT WORTH IT????? Seriously??? Will you be happy THEN????? You've just gotta shit in the big punch bowl, 'eh? Yep, THAT'LL sure as hell show everybody!!!! You're just gonna luv-luv-luv the results.

JUST FUCKING FUCK THAT SHIT.

I vote for Supreme Court pickers. There won't be ANYONE from the other side who'll do a respectable job on that score. THAT you can take straight to the bank, right this very instant. We're liable to get two or three more scalias if we let that happen! I would hope the pouters and the sulkers would at least see a particle of wisdom in THAT. At least!

Sorry to be so hard-ass'd about it. But I'm really starting to get a just a wee bit sick of this shit. I swear sometimes it seems as though there are people here, who aren't even trolls, who are just TRYING to stir things up and rock the boat til it tips over. And then we ALL get to drown, 'eh, just so they could grandstand on some "principle"?

I'd humbly remind everybody - THIS IS POLITICS. "Principle" unfortunately has very little to do with it. You get in it to WIN. PERIOD. Then you can quibble about the details and the principles later. But, DAMMIT, first you have to WIN!!!

Stinks sometimes, but that's just how it is. Whether any of us likes it or not. And frankly, I don't have time to quibble about stuff when there's a BIG PICTURE that needs ALL of our attention.

[misterhighwasted]

138. [phone]. ^THIS^

Which ever Party wins 2016 chooses the S Court.
THAT is the biggest prize of all.

[calimary]

179. Pretty pathetic, not to mention annoying, to think that it all boils down to THAT.

That ONE thing. That single thing is just so powerful and WILL strongly influence the next 20, 30, maybe 50 years. At least a generation or two. We've got three on there who aren't exactly spring chickens. Whether it's scalia or thomas or RBG, at least one of 'em is gonna give up the ghost one of these days and retire. At least one of 'em is gonna need to be replaced.

This is a Presidential Election year. Dems tend to come out to vote more. So THIS would also be the time to make as strong a showing as possible in the Senate. And farther down-ticket, too. If you can possibly bring yourself to do so, vote ALL "Ds". I have found over many years voting in many elections that some general themes tend to show themselves again and again. You CAN pretty much make generalities, a lot of the time. If you dig down deep enough, you'll see the GOP is reactionary or old-fashioned on multiple issues, where most of the people who see things differently and want to look ahead tend to wind up with the Dems. You'll notice the business interests that sponsor the "r's" versus those who support "D's". And look at what the organizations are who are lining up on each side. And the people. Are these a bunch of wish-you'd-go-away's from the last term run by the other party? Are too many of 'em from the Heritage Foundation or some such? Sometimes the research is easy. There are all kinds of "tells" that tip their hand and blow their cover and their attempted subterfuge. Look at who they hang out with or which names keep coming up on the same issues. When I looked down the list of PNACers and found Michael O'Hanlon's name on there - I was SHOCKED! During the run-up to the Iraq War (and during the war too), when you could barely find ANYBODY on the left getting any face time on TV. Except Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, at the time the ONLY even mildly leftward-leaning organization out there, compared with an expanding collection of right/far-right outfits. And he's got a mark on his soul, with jeb bush and one of his foreign policy advisors - paul wolfowitz, and richard b. cheney and the kagans and the "Dark Prince" richard perle and the whole rotten stinking rest of those weasels, too. Election by election I've noticed that this is a common thread.

It would also be intriguing to study the governorships and state legislatures in various states while it's still early. Which one's on the brink of going red? Which one's on the brink of going blue? Which needs to be shorn up and by how much? Where do we have a shot at turning an "r" to a "D"? And for four-year terms that start or end in 2018 - it might be smart to start lining some things up ahead of time. Or at least studying and analyzing more closely.

And ANOTHER thing about this next one being 2016: It's a KEY election cycle. That will begin to set us up for the next Census. That always happens on a zero year. 1980. 1990. 2000. 2010. 2020. 2030... Which CON positions are six-year terms? That'd take us OVER the 0-year mark and there'd be a D in power when the Census is taken and Congressional districts are reapportioned to reflect changes in population that the Census will reveal. YOU DO NOT WANT THE GOP IN CHARGE ON THOSE YEARS!!!!!! Haven't we seen enough of that ridiculous snaky gerrymandering of districts? They look like what you have to trace in the sky while you're trying to spot the stars that will allow you to put constellations together. Ridiculously ridiculous!!! OUR team has to be in charge for the Census and the impact it has on Congressional districts. The GOP so far has very shrewdly stacked the deck.

Fortunately, SOME Dems have finally been shaken awake about this. Freakin' FINALLY!!!!!

http://dlcc.org/news/dlcc-launches-advantage-2020-key-success-next-round-redistricting-70-million-plus-effort

I just hope it's not too late.

[misterhighwasted]

188. Love your passion & truth.

AMEN.

For Americans

[KMOD]

28. Yes, I will vote for the Democratic nominee

and I will work my fanny off for whoever that is to make sure they are elected.

This election is way too important. If republicans gain control of all three branches, they absolutely will take away progress made on insuring many so they can have decent healthcare, they will strip away LGBT rights, women's rights, civil rights, and destroy any environmental advances we have made. I'm also confident that they will take us to war.

So yeah, I'm voting for the Democratic nominee this year.

[msanthrope]

30. I will vote and work for the nominee. And on Election Day...I will be protecting the vote. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

33. I am NOT a HRC supporter ... yet ...

But I certainly, plan to vote for whomever is the Democratic nominee ... even if that nominee is Webb.

(But, I must say, if Webb is the Democratic nominee, my vote will be for the benefit of the rest of America ... as I will be moving me and my family outside of the US.)

[JaneyVee]

34. I WILL vote for WHOEVER Dem nominee is.

[R B Garr]

50. Exactly!! n/t

[onehandle]

38. That foolishness is one direction only. nt

[hrmjustin]

41. Well said.

[MANative]

40. Just as I did in 2008, I will. . .

support the party's nominee, even if he or she is not my first choice. I'm not a mindless robot willing to hand the Presidency to the Gop because I didn't get my way.

FFS

[BainsBane]

43. I'd describe myself as leaning Clinton

but I will wait for the campaign to unfold before making a final decision on whom to caucus for. One thing I know for certain, I will be voting for the Democratic nominee. In 2004, Kerry was last on my list of preferences, but I not only voted for him but organized GOTV efforts in four precincts.

[morningfog]

45. I see the point you are trying to make, but it misses the mark.

There have been a very few DUers who have said (some repeatedly) they would nt vote for Hillary.

Your question should be "are there any democrats that you, as Hillary supporters, would not vote for should they be the nominee?"

That is a slightly different question than the OP. There are some who will not vote for Hillary. That is not because she is not their first choice, but because she is Hillary Clinton.

The answers may be the same, but maybe not.

[NanceGreggs]

79. When someone says ...

... "I will vote for the Democrat in 2016 whether it's HRC or not," that answers your question.

Thus far, I haven't seen anyone responding, "I'll vote for the (D), unless it's _______."

[morningfog]

216. They won't say the unnamed candidate they would

not vote for unless and until s/he has significantly disrupted Hillary's march to victory.

If the primary turns into a fight anything close to 2008, which is still possible, I fully expect to see some Hillary supporters spit at unity and Democratic Party loyalty.

[NanceGreggs]

217. Yeah, well ...

... you keep telling yourself that, hon.

[morningfog]

218. Hon, it's already happened once!

I expect Hillary to be the nominee, so the current Hillary supporters will not likely be placed in that oh so unpleasant situation they were in 7 years ago.

But, if they do find themselves there again, I would not expect them to act any differently.

[NanceGreggs]

221. I guess it hasn't occurred to you ...

... that HRC supporters, then and now, are not a monolithic "they" who act in unison, or even support Hillary for the same reasons.

In fact, what "they" did seven years ago was, in the vast majority, rally around Obama and support the Dem nominee. Their disappointment at Hill not being the candidate did not deter them from ensuring that the (D) beat the (R) in the race to the WH.

The fact that you didn't know that, along with the fact that you think of all HRC supporters as "they" and "them" - i.e. a group that thinks with one mind and conduct themselves accordingly - makes it clear that you are either politically naive or incredibly - well, let's leave it at naive, shall we?

[morningfog]

223. You should read more carefully.

Post 216, I am clam early speaking of "some." The rest follows from there.

But, please continue to be patronizing and personally insulting. It is easier than discussing the point at hand.

[MADem]

52. If Bozo the Clown gets the Democratic nomination, I'll put a GO GO GO with BO BO ZO! sticker on my

car!

As I've said so often, Nance, the worst Dem is better than the best Republican.

The Supremes picks are too important to risk fits of pique.

[MoonRiver]

53. This whole thread, which just asked an honest question,

has been soiled by some bratty little agitators.

But, I will answer your question Nancy by saying, yes, I will vote for the Democratic nominee, whomever it is.

[rhett o rick]

55. Not sure of the point you are trying to make, but there is a good point to be made here.

Why would some Democrats support a candidate that we all can't get behind? If most of the Party won't have a problem voting in the general for O'Malley, Chaffee, Sanders, Warren, etc., then why stick with H.Clinton?

If you were to learn that O'Malley could defeat Bush and Clinton can't, would you still nominate Clinton? If so, don't blame the Left for losing.

In 2002 many on the Left swore to never support those Democrats that stabbed us in the back and joined Bush in the Iraq invasion. Clinton proved there that she can not be trusted to support Democratic ideals. We can do better.

[sufrommich]

56. Absolutely no question,I'm a democrat.I'll vote for

our nominee whoever it is.

[lamp_shade]

57. I will vote for a ham sandwich if it becomes our nominee.

[NanceGreggs]

75. If a ham sandwich became the nominee ...

... the mayo-v-mustard crowd would take over DU.

[Thinkingabout]

61. I am a supporter of Hillary but I am still Democrat and I will vote for the DNC nominee.

If Hillary does not win the nomination then surely the DNC nominee would be better than Hillary and no comparison to whatever falls out of the clown car.

[winstars]

64. I vote for the Democratic Party's nominee. Always have, probably always will...

Next question please?

I mean its called DU right. Not third party candidate.

The last 7 years of Repug craziness has got to make ANYONE with a half a brain vote for someone/ anyone who is not fucking certifiable like they are. Cruz, Paul, Huckabee, Bush, Walker, Rubio fucking Christie!!!

Clinton, Warren, Malley or Joe freaking Biden, all have my vote.


Here's one:

If God forbid, Joe Manchin was the nominee, would you sit out the election and let President Cruz win?
I wouldn't, I would even vote for that guy rather then waste my vote or not vote in "protest"...Without hesitation.... He would certainly suck but hopefully a little less than Rick Perry or BEN CARSON...

But thats just me.

[cui bono]

65. The likelihood that a candidate further right than Hillary winning the primary is slim to none

so if current Hillary supporters - who I would like to think would be open-minded enough to look at other candidates who enter the race but have been told by at least one that they are not - don't get their pick they will get a candidate to vote for who is more in line with Democratic Party values than Clinton, so it's still a win for them.

For those of us who want someone who readily embraces those values and speaks up for and fights for the people, it is a grand concession to have to vote for Hillary. Too much of a concession, frankly. We really do not want another moderate Republican president. One of those with a D after their name is enough. It's time for the party to shift back to where it used to be on the political spectrum, on the left.

To those who want to say that's wrong, then give us a better candidate. It's wrong to keep running moderate Republicans as Dems. Very wrong.

[Andy823]

97. Who is your candidate?

I don't really know who is running yet, but I would think that those who claim they won't vote for her if she wins the nominee, would have someone else in mind. Warren isn't running, I hope Bernie runs so he can bring up the serious issues that need to be discussed, but I also think Bernie can't win. I a looking at O'Malley and want to hear more on how he views the issue that need to be discussed. I am not a Hillary supporter, but I will vote for her if she wins the nomination. There is no way we can take a chance of having any of the clowns running for the republican nomination win the WH, that would be a disaster for the entire country.

[cui bono]

108. I'm hoping Bernie runs, and I believe he can win.

Otherwise, someone new. But I can't vote for someone who I think is detrimental to the well being of our country and our democracy. I have to look into O'Malley, don't know much about him at all. It's early though. Mostly I'm just sick of having Hillary considered the presumptive nominee and her supporters telling us that if we don't vote for her we want a Republican. The primary hasn't even started yet!

Fwiw, my individual vote won't make much of a difference as my state will go blue in the presidential even if I don't vote. But personally, I think it's wrong for anyone to state they'll vote for the nominee no matter who it is because then there's no incentive for TPTB to allow us to have anyone further left. It's like telling someone you'll stay with them even if they cheat, well, then guess what? The Dem Party needs to believe they will lost a lot of their support if they don't shift back to the left where they belong, otherwise why should they? But maybe they don't care.

[William769]

69. Of course I will!

Otherwise is unthinkable!

[ileus]

72. I'm voting for the D...no matter what. My feelings aren't that delicate...

[beachbum bob]

74. I am as confident that Hillary will be the 2016 candidate for president

as I was with Obama would be in 2008...so the real question will be to all the anti-hillary so-called democrats and progressives whether or not they will support her or will allow some batshit crazy conservative take the whitehouse

[workinclasszero]

76. I vote democratic party.

Hopefully its Hillary as she is the only democrat that can beat the teahaddist/fox/Koch bros lie machine.

All the other fantasy left candidates would get their clocks cleaned massively by the Republican ayatollah and America with a full rethug white house, congress and SCOTUS would die.

But if one of those walk on water fantasy candidates gets the nomination I will vote for them and go down with the ship.

[hrmjustin]

77. If I as a known HRC supporter on this site said I am not commiting to support the nominee

if it wasn't HRC I would never hear the end of it.

If I said I would never vote for Sanders, Warren, or O'Malley I would never hear the end of it.

[hrmjustin]

78. My point is that if you can't commit to supporting the nominee you should expect to be challenged.

[zappaman]

82. Although I was just told in another thread that voting doesn't matter...

I will happily vote for the Democratic nominee.

[woo me with science]

83. Manipulative corporate talking points,

Last edited Sun Apr 19, 2015, 07:43 PM - Edit history (1)

repeating the bullying mantra that votes should be owed based on the letter after the name. A manipulative attempt to *shame* others based on this corporate perversion of what should define political loyalty. 'We would vote for your candidate based on the letter! You should vote for ours!"

This OP is a textbook example of Third Way propaganda that continues to try to pervert our fundamental understanding of democracy. To pervert the very meaning of the electoral process by pretending that it is the most natural thing in the world to detach political loyalties from policies and principles and attach it instead to team label.

This is what happens when corporations buy democracies. They try to make us forget the purpose of elections as civic exercise to find the candidate who best represents the people's needs. They try to turn it into vapid team sport instead, in which only the logo and the letter after the name matter.

No. The party must offer something worth voting FOR.

Simply having the D after the name does not mean a vote has been earned.

We have experienced a corporate coup in this nation. The current set of corporate policies - war, economic, police state - is not just less than optimal. It is predatory. It is impoverishing and murdering, dismantling democracy and replacing it with soulless corporate rule.

That's no exaggeration. Millions have been driven into poverty as a result of neoliberal and neocon policies. Our middle class is gone. We have scenes like this now in the United States of America, we lead among "developed" nations in child poverty, and all new wealth is being funnelled to the very top. Corporate Democrats have aggressively enabled all of it, just as they enable the draining of our treasury into the MIC for bloody wars of profit. This is the cancer of candidates who are corporate-owned.

CNN: Homeless encampments known as "tent cities" are popping up across the country.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/16/pf/tent-city/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6262949


We also live in a surveillance state now, and dissent is being crushed.

The agenda Hillary stands for and will continue promises even more of this vicious predation of the 99 percent by the one percent. Our nation can't afford it anymore.

It's more important than ever to remember why we have elections and political parties, and to reject craven corporate attempts to normalize the perversion of our elections into vapid team sport in which loyalty is demanded based on team color, without regard to political agendas that affect the welfare of countless human beings.

[NanceGreggs]

84. I posed a simple question of HRC supporters.

So I'm not sure why you felt compelled to respond.

Your description of someone asking a specific question of a specific group on a message board as "manipulative Third Way propaganda" is a somewhat sad commentary on your own skewed thinking.

[MissDeeds]

88. Perhaps you should have posted

this in the HRC group where only her supporters are welcome.

[NanceGreggs]

91. Not all HRC supporters ...

... participate in the HRC group.

This is DemocraticUnderground - and last time I checked, those supporting a Democrat running for POTUS on the Democratic ticket are free to post in GD.

[tularetom]

181. That's a disingenuous response

You deliberately posted a provocative question in General Discussion, knowing that it would draw responses from other than your ostensible "target audience".

You knew damn well what was going to happen, you just wanted to stir the shit.

[NanceGreggs]

190. Actually, it was a very deliberate response.

Not all HRC supporters participate in the HRC Group. Just as not all Warren supporters participate in the Elizabeth Warren Group, not all Obama supporters participate in The BOG, not all Biden supporters participate in the Joe Biden Group, etc.

The "I won't vote for Hillary no matter what" posters have free rein in GD - are you suggesting that Hillary supporters should not have the same right to post here, but should be restricted to their own corner of the site?

If so, you can take that up with the Admins.

I see nothing "provocative" in asking HRC supporters how they feel about supporting a candidate other than Hillary. If my aim was to "stir the shit", my OP would have consisted of more than the simple question posed.

[hrmjustin]

98. Is everything you disagree with corporate talking points?

[woo me with science]

104. The cancer in our political process is most decidedly corporate,

and the manipulative message of the OP, that votes are owed based on party, is front and center in the corporate perversion of how Americans are taught to understand our fake "democracy."

The predatory agenda of oligarchy is not possible if Americans understand the duty of candidates to represent their interests. That's why so much time, energy, and money have been poured into perverting politics into vapid team sport, instead.

You've got to hand it to our .1 percent. They are nothing if not forward-thinking and creative. What can you do, when you dismantle a 240-year-old representative system of government from the inside and replace it with oligarchy and even nascent fascism? What do you do with the shell of that system? The elections? The parties?

We have a *corporate oligarchy* focused on profit, so the solution should not be surprising: Don't throw away the shell, the outward trappings, of democracy. Keep it, because it's USEFUL.

1. It's USEFUL because it sustains the illusion of democracy.

2. And it's USEFUL because it's PROFITABLE.

Hence what we have seen done to our democratic process. Our presidential elections have been turned from civic exercise into vapid entertainment. From exercise in democracy into an obscene, hyped, massively profitable corporate pageant, a sports event that, as the Princeton study showed, has virtually *nothing* to do with the actual direction of policy or of governance in this country anymore. It is the illusion of democracy, in which the people's voices have no real impact.

Princeton study: U.S. no longer an actual democracy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025405658

We have TWO Superbowls in this country now. Two major, vapid, nationally hyped and advertised sporting events in which the people are urged to take a side and mindlessly cheer for their side to win. And from which the media oligarchs, the political oligarchs, and the banking oligarchs profit BILLIONS.

And the oligarchs are buying up new private islands with the profits from it all.

[hrmjustin]

105. And if hillary wins the nomination will you vote for her?

[woo me with science]

135. Doubling down on the loyalty oaths now?

What a telling response. Thank you.

My vote, and the vote of anyone else on this board, is none of your business, of course. If, with that comment, you planned to go on to reference the TOS, you should recall that the TOS has to do with writing posts that advocate candidates other than the Democratic nominee. I, and many others here, are trying very hard right now to ensure that we do not have a corporate-purchased candidate with a predatory agenda forced down our throats and the country's throat as the Democratic nominee this time. That's because we care about the party and the nation and the millions being exploited and destroyed, and we want the monied corruption to end.

Part of doing that is pointing out the rhetorical manipulations that are used to normalize the corporate perversion of our electoral system and how Americans understand it.

Sometimes you need to reiterate that 2+2=4, and, in this case, 2+2=4 means that, in a democracy, a candidate has a responsibility to EARN votes. They are not owed based on team color, particularly to a candidate with a long and documented history of working against the people for corporate and MIC interests.

I think my point is pretty clear here, and I do not wish to respond to another attempt at deflection from the point or to kick this sort of OP again. So...you have a nice day.

[hrmjustin]

137. Loyalty oaths! Are you kidding me?

I asked you a reasonable question on a political website.

What is more telling is your response and it is what I expected.

I respect your passion but not your high horse attitude towards HRC supporters.

Bye and you won't have to worry about me responding to you anymore.

[woo me with science]

139. Now you're playing victim?

After your response to my lengthy post was a mere snarky, "Is everything you disagree with corporate talking points?" followed by a demand to know who I'm voting for?

Also illustrative of the MO of corporate posting here. When there is no good response to difficult observations, divert to the personal or emotional...deliberately.

You have a nice day, justin.

[NanceGreggs]

183. "The manipulative message of the OP"?

I posed a question specifically to HRC supporters. You are obviously NOT an HRC supporter, and yet you felt compelled (for whatever reason) to respond.

I can tell you that I hate cooking and loathe baking. And yet I have never felt compelled to post in the Cooking & Baking Group in order to tell everyone there that I don't share their enthusiasm for those pursuits.

So why you feel a need to shit in the punchbowl at a gathering which sought neither your attendance nor your opinion is anyone's guess. But you might want to consider your own compulsion to do so.

[SidDithers]

134. ...

What tripe.

Sid

[leftstreet]

140. +1

!!

[sufrommich]

143. Your picture of Detroit is a photoshop.

Not only is it a photoshop but it's a photoshop from FrontPage magazine meant as an insult to Detroit.

[woo me with science]

146. CNN: Homeless encampments known as "tent cities" are popping up across the country.

Homeless encampments known as "tent cities" are popping up across the country.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/16/pf/tent-city/

I have no idea if your claim is true or not, because you didn't bother to back it up. I got the picture from a post on DU and assumed it was real.

Whether the pic is photoshopped or not (and I don't question that it could be, because camping by the homeless has been criminalized in so many parts of this country in order to feed the predatory private prison system that corporate Democrats are *also* growing and supporting...)...

Whether the pic turns out to be photoshopped or not does not change the fact that millions have been forced into poverty and homelessness as a result of the policy agenda aggressively defended by corporate Democrats as well as Republicans. Inequality continues to skyrocket, while corporate politicians like Hillary author predatory "trade" agreements and defend vicious Third Way "solutions" that have only escalated the inequality and pain.

HRC has been speaking of "inclusive prosperity" What is it?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026532461

Homeless encampments known as "tent cities" are popping up across the country.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/16/pf/tent-city/

Okay, really done kicking this thread now.

[sufrommich]

147. Oh my God, your picture is a photoshopped insult

to Detroit from a right wing magazine. If you right click "properties" on the pic it will show you the source of the picture and let me tell you as someone who has lived in the Detroit area for most of my life, there is no place in Detroit that looks like that. Jesus, you were wrong,just take down the picture and spare me the lecture.

[Agschmid]

154. +1

[Hoyt]

86. I cannot imagine a Democrat who would win the primaries that I would not vote for.

Well I think David duke calls himself a Democrat sometimes, but I don't think he could win the primaries. Although some of the Obama critics make me wonder at times.

[Agnosticsherbet]

87. In the General Election, there can be only the nominated Democrat.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

90. Ross Perot's run was essential for Clinton to win - twice

Can't see a third way working with so much money involved.

To answer the question, I will vote for the dem nominee. The GOP is a death cult. I can't ever imagine voting for them again.

If Sanders were to run as an independent, I'll vote for the candidate with the most support - likely Clinton. If she fades, I hope others will enter the race. Maybe Biden. Maybe Sanders. Whoever seems most likely to win over the middle ground.

[R B Garr]

95. I thought the so-called Ross Perot influence was debunked by

the exit polls. That seemed to be solidly debunked many times over the years. Clinton won, and I don't see many Republicans lamenting Dubya Bush LOSING the popular vote and losing Florida only to be helped by the Supreme Court.

No one mentions Bush's ACTUAL illegitimacy, yet we go back years for some made up claim about Clinton squeaking in because of Ross Perot. This is the type of rhetoric that needs to be talked down before the Bushies start this again with Jeb. I don't know why Democratic leaders don't just start shutting these type of talking points down.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

156. Perot made Clinton victories possible and drove him to the right.

Last edited Mon Apr 20, 2015, 02:08 AM - Edit history (1)

Why do you think they call him a political genius?

We don know for sure where the 19% of Perot votes might have wound up, but chances are a majority would have gone to Bush (and later to Dole).

The lesson is that many of Perot's voters would have stayed home. Clinton easily won the electoral college though 370 to 168, but it takes people voting to override WS money in Wahington.

DON'T NOT VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT IN 2016. Hopefully by election day we'll be excited to vote. That is my hope for the future.

[R B Garr]

174. No, the exit polls showed Perot drew equally from both parties...

I even heard Clinton himself talking about this, I think it was on the Charlie Rose show some years ago -- the exit polls showed that Perot drew basically even from both parties and that this was just a Republican talking point to delegitimize him like they do with every Democrat.


(3) A comprehensive national exit poll found that Perot voters were divided almost evenly on their second choice and that Clinton — in a two-way race — would still have beaten Bush by 5.8 million votes (his actual margin was 5.3 million in initial ’92 tally).
http://race42016.com/2011/04/20/did-ross-perot-elect-bill-clinton/

Anyway, I agree with your other points, well said!

It just irks me that the Republicans have made it so that no one speaks about their actual ILLEGITIMATE president who was basically installed by the Supreme Court.

[7962]

213. Perot got 18% and campaigned for votes from the right.

I have no doubt Bush wouldve won re election with no Perot. Maybe not, but the only people I knew who voted for Perot were the pissed off "no new taxes" people. And he got a lot of votes where I lived at the time

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

214. See post 174 please

[R B Garr]

215. No, that is a myth that has been debunked. Exit polls and other

analysis have disproven this. This myth is basically a right-wing canard to delegitimize Clinton, which others here appear to like to engage in, as well.


http://www.salon.com/2011/04/04/third_party_myth_easterbrook/
"Ross Perot’s presence on the 1992 presidential ballot did not change the outcome of the election, according to an analysis of the second choices of Perot supporters.

The analysis, based on exit polls conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS) for the major news organizations, indicated that in Perot’s absence, only Ohio would have have shifted from the Clinton column to the Bush column. This would still have left Clinton with a healthy 349-to-189 majority in the electoral college.

And even in Ohio, the hypothetical Bush “margin” without Perot in the race was so small that given the normal margin of error in polls, the state still might have stuck with Clinton absent the Texas billionaire.

In most states, the second choices of Perot voters only reinforced the actual outcome. For example, California, New York, Illinois and Oregon went to Clinton by large margins, and Perot voters in those states strongly preferred Clinton to Bush.

Repeat after me: Ross Perot did not “cost” George H.W. Bush the 1992 election. If you see or hear a commentator using this claim as supporting evidence, immediately discount whatever argument that commentator is advancing. The poor economy doomed George H.W. Bush in 1992 — not a short billionaire from Texas."

[SoapBox]

96. ^Yup^

We MUST hold the White House.

While our house is not 100% in favor of HRC...can anyone seriously accept the Party of Puke and Bagger, controlling the White House, Senate and House?!?

Talk about America being terrorized.

[SoapBox]

92. Wow....I'm not even sure what to say, so...

My partner and I do not think that she will win the White House. For whatever reasons, we feel there is more HRC burnout than even Village Idiot Bush burnout...when November arrives and push comes to shove, she will lose.

We want a different candidate that has a SERIOUS chance of winning the Presidentcy. As much as we like what they do and say, Sanders and Warrens cannot win. Possibly O'Malley? Or someone that pops up, male (sorry!), attractive, charismatic, with a common sense campaign...along the lines of how we felt when President Obama was running. We didn't even know who he was when he started his campaign.

[Gamecock Lefty]

100. 100% for HRC!

If Hillary does not win the nomination, then I will be 100% for whomever does!

[nolabear]

101. Of course I'll vote for the Democratic nominee. I care too much not to.

And I'm exhausted by those who are apparently willing to throw me to the wolves if they don't get their way.

[gwheezie]

102. of course I would even vote for webb

As difficult as that would be. Even he would be better than any GOP running on women's issues and that's pretty pathetic

[busterbrown]

103. I Dont Think There is One person who would reply Yes

To this question...

If Hillary is the Nominee and Dems. don’t vote for her..
Prepare for a Teabagger White House, Senate, and House.

Very Frightening!!

[Agschmid]

112. I will vote for the nominee whoever that is.

[Thespian2]

113. Dear NanceGreggs

I can't answer your question because I have never supported HRC.

[sheshe2]

114. Yes...

I have been leaning toward Hillary more and more. The reason? The ugly relentless bashing of her on DU. I would say that the final straw came when some childish poster thought it would be funny to post a picture of her as an aging crone, she now has my support.

However, no matter who wins, I will indeed be voting for the Democratic candidate.

[NBachers]

155. I agree- the more vitriol that's thrown at her here on DU, the more determined I am to support her.

[Agschmid]

165. Same.

[sheshe2]

169. Hey, NBachers....

I'll bet you that is not the response they were after. Backfired big time.

[NBachers]

176. The same broken record of complaints, playing over, and over, and over, and over . . .

And you know what? These complaints, most of 'em, have validity. But they're not advanced as discussion points. They're used as a cudgel to beat the Hillary supporters with.

This is April of 2015. Election day isn't until November 8th, 2016. We have a good chance of winning. Let's be enthusiastic and support each other. What's better- #Democratsstrong, or #Democratsfracturedandbroken?

Who benefits from #Democratsstrong?

Who benefits from #Democratsfracturedandbroken?

[sheshe2]

178. I'll stay with the~

Who benefits from #Democratsstrong?

'cause we will all benefit from this.

[stage left]

115. I will vote for the Democratic nominee

Whoever that is.

[StevieM]

119. I will enthusiastically support whoever the Democratic nominee is. (eom)

[patricia92243]

121. Fall in love, then fall in line. Of course I will vote for whoever is our nominee.

[Cartoonist]

127. Conscience?

Someone who claims that their conscience won't let them vote for Hillary but have no problem letting another Bush in the White House don't really have a conscience. At least not one that is admirable in any way.

[Cal33]

142. You're quite right. Bad as she is, Hillary is still better than Bush or any other Republican.

[Pathwalker]

131. I'm a dead dog Democrat, so the answer is YES.

n/t

[BKH70041]

132. Depends on who it is.

If it's Lyndon LaRouche, or someone else I disapprove, then no.

[rug]

141. Even though these party loyalty threads are obnoxious, you'll find your answer in the 2008 results.

[Cal33]

144. I think there are some people who won't learn from 2008, because their minds are already made up,

and they are not interested in changing. Unfortunately, there are one-track minded people around.
They can't see any other danger - other than the one they already have in mind - because they don't
wish to.

[Gothmog]

145. I will vote for the Democratic Candidate in the general election

We can not afford to lose the SCOTUS for entire generation

[brooklynite]

149. No Hillary Clinton supporter here has ever said they wouldn't support the Democratic nominee...

...whomever that it. No Hillary Clinton has said Sander (or Warren) shouldn't run if they want to.

[BlueCaliDem]

151. I will support, vote for, and donate to *any* Democrat who wins the primaries. Period.

If that candidate isn't my choice and the American people choose the other candidate, I've had my say and I will vote for the winner.

I am, after all, a staunch Democrat. I don't much like being wishy-washy and I don't like fence-sitting, but above all else, I loathe to see another Republican ease his privileged behind into the White House.

[chillfactor]

152. I will vote for whomever is the Democratic nominee..

no matter who it is.....do we REALLY want a Rethug president?

[NBachers]

153. Nance: Yes, of course I'll vote for the Democratic candidate, whoever it is.

I support Hillary.
I love Bernie. It would be a dream come true if he became president.
Warren would be great, but I believe she's best where she is. I'll vote for her if she's the candidate.
I've long liked and contributed to James Webb, even though I live on the other coast.
I know nothing about O'Malley, but I'll vote and send him money if he's the candidate.

I am a Democrat.

[sendero]

157. I realize this is beyond your ken..

... but if it is another corporatist neocon DINO, the fucking answer is fucking NO,

[hrmjustin]

158. Hillary is not a Dino.

[sendero]

159. Not for social issues....

..perhaps because her owners don't care about that shit. But for economics and business she is a FUCKING DINO.

[hrmjustin]

160. Her owners? are you kidding me?

Sometimes I feel like I am on fee republic or the conservative cave.

[sendero]

161. I feel like..

.. I am in a land of fools. And actually, I am.

[hrmjustin]

162. Fools huh.

Well whatever.

[sendero]

163. If you don't get..

... that the Clintons are OWNED by the banksters, well if the shoe fits. Welcome to ignore, you have nothing to contribute because you are too lazy to examine the facts.

[hrmjustin]

164. Got called a fool and put on ignore. I will have to pick up the pieces of my shattered life.

[zappaman]

167. !!!

[hrmjustin]

168. .

[okasha]

184. ...

[hrmjustin]

185. .

[Agschmid]

219. Oh boy...

[leftofcool]

192. Is this poster saying a woman can be "owned"?

Horseshit! Women are not slaves nor can they be owned!

[hrmjustin]

196. I think the poster means she is owned by wall street but the poster can speak for themself.

[Agschmid]

166. Wtf...

"her owners"...

What goes on here?

[BainsBane]

172. How did you get the idea that Democrats were anti-capital?

or anti-business? When has that ever been the case? Looks to me like you've been taking GOP propaganda too seriously. The Democratic Party is not the Communist Party or the Socialist Workers Party. It has always supported the nation's biggest financial interests from its inception, when it served the interests of slaveholders. At the turn of the century it was industrialists and now it is finance. You live in a capitalist country, and the Democrats are part of the capitalist state.

[leftofcool]

193. Owned? Women are owned? You should be ashamed!

[cry baby]

170. I will vote for any candidate that the Democratic Party puts forward.

Without hesitation.

[leftofcool]

186. You bet I will vote for the nominee!

[whatthehey]

189. I have no committed candidate right now but I know two things for sure

1) DU is rife with anti-Democratic self-defeating unreasoned hatred of HRC.

2) I could not give the slightest shit about nominees. I would crawl over broken glass to vote for Elizabeth Bathory (D) over Albert Schweitzer (R) or any other variant. I am so far from Yellow Dog that I would vote for the faeces of the flea on the yellow dog Democrat over a Republican saint waving a truckload of $100 bills for every voter, because utilitarianism tells me that's the right choice. Anyone who chooses otherwise hates the nation, pure and simple.

Team sport? Damn fucking right. Either the D or the R nominee will be the next president. 100% certainty. I know which I want. If you don't, frankly fuck off and die now.

[oasis]

194. I'll work AND vote for Hillary if she's our nominee.

I won't work for any amateurs.

[whereisjustice]

199. "I won't vote for HRC if she's the nominee" posts

Really? Where? There must be an incredible number of said posts for you to have taken time out of your busy day to address the crisis.

Can you link to the plurality of Original Posts that express this sentiment?

Is it in the 100s? Or just 1 or 2 and dissent from the status quo confuses you?

Some numbers to indicate the gravity of the situation might make it look like this isn't just a poorly designed trolling exercise which ( clearly to me) it isn't. I'm sure there are some others who might be less certain.

Then again, if there are 100s of posts like this, perhaps the better question is, why is the Democratic Party running such a polarizing candidate?

If you'd like people to respond to the question, you can lead the way by answering it yourself as an example.

Will you be voting for the Democratic candidate in the general election if Clinton doesn't win?

[hrmjustin]

201. She didn't post If Hillary was the nominee will you vote for her.

[whereisjustice]

202. We've all seen the "I won't vote for HRC if she's the nominee" posts....

Really? Who has posted this as an OP?

Some people only get a chance to visit the site once or twice a week, so we may have missed the barrage of original posts that the OP says we've all seen.

[hrmjustin]

203. With respect i didn't say what you are quoting.

Did you mean to respond to someone else.

[NanceGreggs]

204. Hmmmm ...

"There must be an incredible number of said posts for you to have taken time out of your busy day to address the crisis."

Where did I say it was an "incredible number"? Where did I say this was "a crisis"?

Why are you asking for links to "original posts" as opposed to "any posts", including replies?

"Is it in the 100s?" Did I say it was in the hundreds? The only person who has suggested that so far is you. And yet you continue your own meme: "Then again, if there are 100s of posts like this, perhaps the better question is, why is the Democratic Party running such a polarizing candidate?"

Again, no one suggested "100s of posts", other than you.

As for the Dem Party running "such a polarizing candidate", you might want to keep in mind that at this point in the proceedings, HRC already has support from the majority of the party.

I'll give you credit, though - it's quite a skill to erect that many strawmen in one post. Too bad you didn't see how vulnerable they all were before you decided to prop them up.

To answer your question, though: Yes, I will be voting for the (D) candidate in 2016 no matter who that candidate turns out to be.

[whereisjustice]

205. "We've all seen the posts..." So you claim there is more than one. Would two

be enough for you to assume we've all seen them?

If it's one or two, I'm sure you'd agree that the assertion "we've all seen them..." is not rational since there are hundreds of various posts per day, thousands per week.

Your statement that "we've all seen them" requires scrutiny to determine there is sufficient quantity to support your assertion.

And if it is true that people are not happy with Clinton, to the point of not voting Democratic in the general election, why wouldn't that be a concern? You failed to explain that. But that's secondary issue I'm willing to let slide.

The main point is this:

Publishing the list of all these original posts claiming an unwillingness to vote for Clinton in the general would give authenticity to your original post. I think many people would be surprised to find that so many posts exist that "we've all seen them".

Otherwise, it could look like (and in no way am I suggesting you are) are just making stuff up some other purpose.

[NanceGreggs]

206. Have you noticed ...

... that in all of the replies in this thread, the only one who is questioning the quantity or authenticity of the "I-won't-vote-for-Hillary" posts is YOU?

Everyone else who has replied (positively or negatively) don't seem to have a problem grasping the concept, nor feel a need to debate its reality.

[whereisjustice]

207. No, I haven't. So, can you supply the list or not? Just wondering.

[NanceGreggs]

212. If you are curious ...

... as to how many people here have posted that they won't vote for HRC if she is the nominee, you can do a site search and find those posts yourself.

[JEB]

200. I pledge my loyalty

to traditional Democratic issues like supporting Labor over Capital, peace over war, people over corporations (who are not people). We'll have to see who best represents those issues.

[Hekate]

208. SCOTUS. I vote for Democrats.

Jesus there's a lot of crazy in this thread. I only started using the HRC avatar a lot earlier than I planned to because of all the freaking anti-Hillary rhetoric at DU.

[stevenleser]

211. I cannot imagine a circumstance where I wouldn't vote for the Democratic nominee.

It literally is unimaginable.

[BreakfastClub]

220. It depends. I probably would vote for the person who wins the

nomination, but I can't say for sure, because I don't know who that would be.

I don't have high hopes that Hillary will win, even though I've been supporting her for president since before 2008. There's just so much irrational hatred toward the Clintons, and that coupled with rampant sexism makes me pessimistic that she will win. The last time, I was so excited for her to be the president, and my hopes were not only dashed, but I also realized that an alarming portion of the democratic party is sexist. I have become disillusioned and more realistic about a woman's chances to win the White House since then. Knowing what I know now about the sexism and misogyny that would have to be overcome for any woman to win, I don't think her chances are good.