Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

NRaleighLiberal

(60,014 posts)
Sat May 16, 2015, 06:46 PM May 2015

So does it come down to this - the best candidates for our principles "can't win", so we must

get behind a lesser candidate (with regards to the checklist of our principles) because they can win? That's really disappointing, isn't it - having to "settle" because the process is totally screwed up? Is the game rigged or what!

And that right there is why I am spending far, far more time gardening, listening to music, mentally escaping than I am on news and politics.

68 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
So does it come down to this - the best candidates for our principles "can't win", so we must (Original Post) NRaleighLiberal May 2015 OP
I Will No Longer Settle For The Lesser Of Two Evils - Go Bernie Go cantbeserious May 2015 #1
since you have said this repeatedly, so, if sanders does not win, you advocate NOT voting dem? seabeyond May 2015 #31
Who told you Senator Sanders was the "lesser candidate?" leftofcool May 2015 #2
Sanders is the greater candidate for me - but there is a daily barrage of NRaleighLiberal May 2015 #3
That would only be true if Senator Sanders ran in the general election as an Independent leftofcool May 2015 #4
Don't blame Nader. If anyone, blame Rove. Gregorian May 2015 #17
Gore only needed to win his homestate to win yeoman6987 May 2015 #21
Sounds like something from WorldNutDaily. SMC22307 May 2015 #27
We all should. It's a fact. I know facts are ugly and uncomfortable yeoman6987 May 2015 #34
Bull. Shit. Adrahil May 2015 #51
Gore won. Furthermore, which candidates should be barred from running? Gregorian May 2015 #55
Vote for who you believe in in the primaries. upaloopa May 2015 #5
That's not accurate in a primary and you know it. Agschmid May 2015 #30
Can we count on your vote for Sanders after he wins the nomination? Vincardog May 2015 #26
I'm sure Hillary will endorse him after the Primaries, right? Jackpine Radical May 2015 #52
Exactly all Democrats will get behind Bernie after the primaries Vincardog May 2015 #64
Sometimes 1939 May 2015 #6
This should be a good idea, but... appal_jack May 2015 #11
And damage this country for generations? Are you nuts? Adrahil May 2015 #50
Real people are already suffering, and many of us have been holding our noses and voting. ladyVet May 2015 #65
Any examples? treestar May 2015 #67
You seem to put much more value in what you read on the internet than your preferred candidate. Tarheel_Dem May 2015 #7
and you miss my point completely. NRaleighLiberal May 2015 #9
You and me both. TBF May 2015 #8
we are doing fine! thanks so much.....it is remarkable, isn't it? NRaleighLiberal May 2015 #10
OK that is funny - TBF May 2015 #42
I won't settle bigwillq May 2015 #12
The best candidate will win. JaneyVee May 2015 #13
LOL L0oniX May 2015 #57
That's been the case for almost every election in history. DCBob May 2015 #14
You have to lose to win. LWolf May 2015 #15
I'll do what I do just about every election Ruby the Liberal May 2015 #16
Don't blame you... Thespian2 May 2015 #18
Yes the game is rigged. Autumn May 2015 #19
Why do you claim the game is rigged? brooklynite May 2015 #20
The game is rigged for those with huge money - and since the money controls the media... NRaleighLiberal May 2015 #22
All the more reason then... brooklynite May 2015 #32
"All the more reason then.. DJ13 May 2015 #35
So your philsophy is to stand on principle and lose? brooklynite May 2015 #37
So your philsophy is to stand on principle DJ13 May 2015 #38
The only way to change the rules is to change the Supreme Court or the Constitution brooklynite May 2015 #39
The point is that we've already lost :( TBF May 2015 #43
It's a refusal to accept reality treestar May 2015 #68
Maybe you can do a Bernie tomato BrotherIvan May 2015 #23
National elections have a broad electorate, thus very left candidates stand no chance. MohRokTah May 2015 #24
If your team wins, the quarterback doesn't matter... Sancho May 2015 #25
I can't speak for anyone but myself, of course, KMOD May 2015 #28
The lesser of evils augment is a bullshit argument Agnosticsherbet May 2015 #29
I will not "settle" anymore. 840high May 2015 #33
Same as it ever was Sobax May 2015 #36
They CAN win, IF we stop listening to this nonsense which we have been doing for far too long. sabrina 1 May 2015 #40
How? brooklynite May 2015 #47
it's ironic that may duers who bash poor people for voting "against their interest", support Doctor_J May 2015 #41
How many of these policies will he be able to deliver on, if he loses? brooklynite May 2015 #46
Even if he wins, I don't think he can deliver on many of them mythology May 2015 #58
Part of being the "best candidate for our principals" is being able to implement those principles. NYC Liberal May 2015 #44
Liberal? She and Obama or corporate conservatives and global interventionists. What is moderate? TheKentuckian May 2015 #53
Nope, Hillary Clinton is a liberal. NYC Liberal May 2015 #54
I can remember when the same things were said about Al Gore. R B Garr May 2015 #45
That's what primary elections are about. MineralMan May 2015 #48
+1 FLPanhandle May 2015 #60
Thanks. MineralMan May 2015 #61
It's called politics. Adrahil May 2015 #49
Fuck that. hootinholler May 2015 #56
Vote for the primary candidate that best reflects your preferred position mythology May 2015 #59
We need to use a "ranked-choice" voting system, but we don't. MH1 May 2015 #62
This is the way it's always been. aikoaiko May 2015 #63
the one who gets the most votes stands for our principles treestar May 2015 #66

leftofcool

(19,460 posts)
2. Who told you Senator Sanders was the "lesser candidate?"
Sat May 16, 2015, 06:52 PM
May 2015

As a Hillary supporter, I don't see him as the lesser candidate. I don't think he could win a general election but that does not in any way make him a lesser candidate. If you are supporting the candidate who best reflects your values how are you settling?

NRaleighLiberal

(60,014 posts)
3. Sanders is the greater candidate for me - but there is a daily barrage of
Sat May 16, 2015, 06:54 PM
May 2015

"a vote for Sanders, or Warren (if she decided to run), etc is a vote for Republican" types of posts.

leftofcool

(19,460 posts)
4. That would only be true if Senator Sanders ran in the general election as an Independent
Sat May 16, 2015, 07:05 PM
May 2015

He has already stated he would not do that and be a 'spoiler" as was Nader.

 

yeoman6987

(14,449 posts)
21. Gore only needed to win his homestate to win
Sat May 16, 2015, 10:03 PM
May 2015

That was a shame. We could have president gore at a critical time if only the state he called home voted for him.

SMC22307

(8,090 posts)
27. Sounds like something from WorldNutDaily.
Sat May 16, 2015, 10:49 PM
May 2015

Don't they pride themselves on contributing to Gore's loss in Tennessee?

 

yeoman6987

(14,449 posts)
34. We all should. It's a fact. I know facts are ugly and uncomfortable
Sat May 16, 2015, 11:08 PM
May 2015

But it is part of being a grown up.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
51. Bull. Shit.
Sun May 17, 2015, 10:30 AM
May 2015

All the Nader voters want to pretend that it was OK they voted for him, but if he hadn't run, there would have been no Bush v. Gore.

Let that sink in.

Gregorian

(23,867 posts)
55. Gore won. Furthermore, which candidates should be barred from running?
Sun May 17, 2015, 12:21 PM
May 2015

Suddenly it's not America in the world you seem to be living in.

So don't blame Rove. But do blame the Supreme Court, at least.

upaloopa

(11,417 posts)
5. Vote for who you believe in in the primaries.
Sat May 16, 2015, 07:08 PM
May 2015

Vote for who is on the ballot in the General
No compromise.
I voted for Jesse Jackson in the California primaries and Bill Clinton in the general.
I don't feel I compromised.

1939

(1,683 posts)
6. Sometimes
Sat May 16, 2015, 07:10 PM
May 2015

you need to lose in order to win. Probably a bannable offense to explain it, but a third party has to really hurt an established party to either get the established party to adopt their platform or to destroy the established party in order to replace it. Either way, the GOP will win a couple of cycles until you sort out the way the party is going.

 

appal_jack

(3,813 posts)
11. This should be a good idea, but...
Sat May 16, 2015, 07:31 PM
May 2015

After the Nader run of 2000, we got Chimpy. The fault was more Gore/Loserman'sn, and the Supreme Court's, and the corrupt FL officials, but still: for a good dozen years afterward here, the canon was "Fuck Nader!" and nothing more.

If anything, the Democrats have drifted even further from the Green/Nader platform in the years since.

I wish that we could scare the Democratic Party insiders into valuing labor, greens, and progressives, but they seem resolute in ignoring us on every day except election day. I'll keep trying though...

-app

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
50. And damage this country for generations? Are you nuts?
Sun May 17, 2015, 10:26 AM
May 2015

Make no mistake, if the Teapublicans get control of All three branches, our country is fucked for 2-3 generations at least. Real people will suffer in your quest for ideological purity. That's insanity.

ladyVet

(1,587 posts)
65. Real people are already suffering, and many of us have been holding our noses and voting.
Sun May 17, 2015, 07:55 PM
May 2015

I've been doing it for decades now, and the party is sliding more to the right all the time. Picking a candidate because "at least they're better than a Republican" is only making things worse.

Personally, I'm voting for Bernie in the primary, and if he doesn't win the nomination I'll vote for the Green candidate, or I won't vote at all. I'm tired of doing the right thing, and always ending up in worse shape.

I understand the consequences of where this country is going. I'm female and only five years away from Social Security. How do you think I feel when Democrats talk about "entitlements" and putting SS on the table? When they let insurance companies get away with their policies that make my health care less than a mans?

It's not a warm, fuzzy feeling, ya, sure, you betcha. I feel like I've been robbed, and yet I'm supposed to sit down and eat my peas (for at least as long as I can still afford them, I guess), and let the party that wants my money give it all up to the corporations.

And I still haven't gotten my pony.

Tarheel_Dem

(31,233 posts)
7. You seem to put much more value in what you read on the internet than your preferred candidate.
Sat May 16, 2015, 07:19 PM
May 2015

Support who you like. You're the one who called him "lesser". That's a problem, coming from a "supporter". It's pretty simple really. This is still DU, where you'll read a lot of stuff you disagree with. Get over it.

TBF

(32,056 posts)
8. You and me both.
Sat May 16, 2015, 07:24 PM
May 2015

I have been spending some time in the Bernie and socialists groups, but other than that I am finding other activities. I just get frustrated when I go to GD and get constantly assaulted if I don't say the right thing about the party's chosen candidate. I am going to continue to support Bernie but I don't want to be part of this vicious in-fighting because it will only encourage me to not vote at all if Bernie is not the candidate (and it doesn't escape me that certain folks that I've had to put on ignore this week probably aren't even Dems to being with - they are likely only here to provoke).

Hope the gardens and your family are doing well.

NRaleighLiberal

(60,014 posts)
10. we are doing fine! thanks so much.....it is remarkable, isn't it?
Sat May 16, 2015, 07:26 PM
May 2015

I've never, ever been able to stand the whole cheerleading thing - especially when it is such thin skinned cheer leading (have you noted the numbers of blocked members here and there on certain groups?)

TBF

(32,056 posts)
42. OK that is funny -
Sun May 17, 2015, 09:20 AM
May 2015

I just look at a bunch of the "about me" in groups. The blocked members resemble my ignore list!

Regarding the # of blocked members for the HC group ... you gotta wonder. Saw an on-point article in the Times this morning: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/us/politics/the-right-aims-at-democrats-on-social-media-to-hit-clinton.html?ref=politics

It is amazing how much new technology is affecting elections in our country. It is always in the back of the mind that anything could be happening to electronic voting machines & now propaganda vis a vie social media is a huge issue.

 

bigwillq

(72,790 posts)
12. I won't settle
Sat May 16, 2015, 07:33 PM
May 2015

I will vote for the candidate of my choice, win or lose, D,R,I, write-in.
I live in CT, it doesn't make much difference anyway--DEMs win most of the time in my state, so it's sort of a win-win anyway.

LWolf

(46,179 posts)
15. You have to lose to win.
Sat May 16, 2015, 07:55 PM
May 2015

The logic of those who work tirelessly to marginalize the better candidates.

And a logic leaving me to ask: What, exactly, do I WIN when I lose?

I'll stick with fighting for a true win, myself.

Ruby the Liberal

(26,219 posts)
16. I'll do what I do just about every election
Sat May 16, 2015, 07:56 PM
May 2015

Vote for who I want that is still on the ballot when the primary rolls around, and if there isn't a candidate left standing that I can stomach, bury my head in the sand until after the conventions. By that point, I will be over the loss and paying attention to the level of insanity that the Republicans have put forth and will be rejuvenated to get back to the polls in November.

I wouldn't have volunteered for Hillary in 2008 (and likely won't if she is the nominee in 2016), but by taking a break, I will definitely be able to vote for her with my head held high considering the alternative option.

So far I am in with Bernie as my #1 unless Elizabeth Warren jumps in, and I do like O'Malley. We shall see who is still competing next year when our primary rolls around!

Thespian2

(2,741 posts)
18. Don't blame you...
Sat May 16, 2015, 09:37 PM
May 2015

Plenty of cheerleaders around...

We are finally getting some warm weather, so I am getting my gardens ready for planting...have to wait until the threat of frost is over...short growing season here in the Maritime Provinces...

brooklynite

(94,519 posts)
20. Why do you claim the game is rigged?
Sat May 16, 2015, 09:52 PM
May 2015

Are you claiming that your candidate is so popular that the only way he could lose if the election was rigged?

As much as YOU may not like her, Hillary Clinton is polular with a wide range of Democrats. And other than he dreams of some people here, I've seen no evidence that Bernie Sandees is approaching that number (hint: he'll need as many voters as Obama got in 2008).

But even if we assume he wins the nomination, there's this thing called a General Election where they let Republicans and Independents vote. Hillary Clinton has appeal to the middle of the road voters she'll need in addition to the Democrats she'll get; no rigging required.

NRaleighLiberal

(60,014 posts)
22. The game is rigged for those with huge money - and since the money controls the media...
Sat May 16, 2015, 10:12 PM
May 2015

and since many, many people parrot or believe anything they read or hear (even if it is not in their best interest), then the game is rigged.

It is not about "like" - it is about who represents my views. My wife, my two daughters, are all fatigued by the same old message, same old approach (and I am NOT referring to age). We are very much aligned with Sanders or Warren'sabo message, though of course if Clinton wins the nomination, she would get all of our votes.

But...it is about money, and controlling the message.

brooklynite

(94,519 posts)
32. All the more reason then...
Sat May 16, 2015, 11:04 PM
May 2015

...to support a candidate who can raise he money we'll need to compete with the Republicans AND who's committed to overturning Citizen's United.

DJ13

(23,671 posts)
35. "All the more reason then..
Sat May 16, 2015, 11:46 PM
May 2015

.....to support a candidate who can raise the money we'll need to compete with Republicans"


And we wonder why our political system keeps being dragged further and further to the right.

"We'll just act like conservatives long enough to win, then we can go back to traditional liberal values afterwards."

It never works that way, theres always another election coming up where we have to act like the other side so we can win.

DJ13

(23,671 posts)
38. So your philsophy is to stand on principle
Sun May 17, 2015, 12:53 AM
May 2015

Winning or losing means nothing if you compromise your principles.

Thats how I've always seen it.

brooklynite

(94,519 posts)
39. The only way to change the rules is to change the Supreme Court or the Constitution
Sun May 17, 2015, 01:00 AM
May 2015

Both Sanders and Clinton have pledged to do that through their SC nominees. So there WILL be a change in the future. However, one candidate will have the resources to win to be ABLE to make those SC nominations; the other candidate will not. I'll accept that short-term condition.

BTW - by your standards, millions of people would not have health care today if we insisted on "not compromising our principle" and insisted on a single payer strategy which would never have passed.

TBF

(32,056 posts)
43. The point is that we've already lost :(
Sun May 17, 2015, 09:23 AM
May 2015

we don't have the money to elect the people we'd really like to have (it is a huge longshot with Bernie - and that's with so many of us individually trying to chip in)

treestar

(82,383 posts)
68. It's a refusal to accept reality
Sun May 17, 2015, 07:58 PM
May 2015

About other voters, both Democrats and others. Just an insistence that DU liberals represent most of the world.

BrotherIvan

(9,126 posts)
23. Maybe you can do a Bernie tomato
Sat May 16, 2015, 10:27 PM
May 2015

Or a Bernie tomato fundraiser. Summer is coming and your tomatoes are le bomb. You might get some interest and maybe Sanders group supporters can help.

(I hear you, I'm starting to get depressed about the whole situation that only big money is even considered "serious" in this country. I think we are well and truly screwn.)

 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
24. National elections have a broad electorate, thus very left candidates stand no chance.
Sat May 16, 2015, 10:31 PM
May 2015

State Elections are a bit better, depending upon the state.

Take Florida, for example. There is no way possible for Alan Grayson to win a statewide election in Florida. If, however, we were talking about Massachusetts, he'd stand a very good chance and an even better chance in Vermont.

It's in smaller Congressional districts where we can get some of the most liberal candidates elected, again, depending upon the district.

Sancho

(9,067 posts)
25. If your team wins, the quarterback doesn't matter...
Sat May 16, 2015, 10:36 PM
May 2015

politics is a team sport. If you don't play as a team, you lose.

 

KMOD

(7,906 posts)
28. I can't speak for anyone but myself, of course,
Sat May 16, 2015, 10:56 PM
May 2015

I back HRC because I believe she is a strong candidate for our principles. She has been a very strong advocate for democratic principles, and has a unique and diverse amount of experience. She is also very highly respected, not just here, but world wide.

That said, it's quite early, and Senator Sanders and Governor O'Malley have plenty of time to become more well known. Should Sanders, or O'Malley win the nomination, I will gladly vote for them as well, because losing the White House is not an option for me. There is too much at stake this time.

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
29. The lesser of evils augment is a bullshit argument
Sat May 16, 2015, 11:01 PM
May 2015

Last edited Sat May 16, 2015, 11:47 PM - Edit history (1)

When did anyone in the universe promise ideal candidates or ideal anything.

In the primary, I will choose the best candidate from those that are running.

In the general election, I choose the best candidate from those who are running.

I see the lesser of two evils argument as a form of voluntary self inflicted voter suppression.

Perfection does not exist.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
40. They CAN win, IF we stop listening to this nonsense which we have been doing for far too long.
Sun May 17, 2015, 01:10 AM
May 2015

You don't have to settle. No one does.

It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Imagine if this time everyone just voted for the candidate who most represents their principles.

It's that simple, and we know that a majority of Americans agree on the major issues.

Just vote for whoever best represents you. More people are going to be doing that this time than ever before.

And yes the best candidate CAN win.

brooklynite

(94,519 posts)
47. How?
Sun May 17, 2015, 10:12 AM
May 2015

nobody claiming "he can win" can explain how he raises the money he'll need to win which States with what kind of voters.

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
41. it's ironic that may duers who bash poor people for voting "against their interest", support
Sun May 17, 2015, 07:02 AM
May 2015

Hillary over Sanders. Unless you believe that TPP, school privatization, continued war and military spending, fracking, more drilling, another wall street cabinet, and for profit health insurance are in your best interest, shouldn't Sanders be your candidate?

 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
58. Even if he wins, I don't think he can deliver on many of them
Sun May 17, 2015, 01:14 PM
May 2015

The House will likely remain in Republican hands due to gerrymandering until after the next census. That alone will make progress difficult.

NYC Liberal

(20,135 posts)
44. Part of being the "best candidate for our principals" is being able to implement those principles.
Sun May 17, 2015, 09:23 AM
May 2015

Hillary is a great liberal Democrat, and she can get a liberal policy agenda implemented, just as Pres. Obama has done.

TheKentuckian

(25,026 posts)
53. Liberal? She and Obama or corporate conservatives and global interventionists. What is moderate?
Sun May 17, 2015, 11:01 AM
May 2015

St. Ronnie of Rayguns? George W. Bush?

Would Strom Thurmond be center right or just barely conservative at this point? Fucking Birchers have been mainstreamed and we have supposedly liberal Democrats calling middle of the road New Dealers the radical leftist fringe and people wonder why things are fucked up and getting worse all the time.

People like you are dragging the country to the right and have been radicalizing the regressive elements in the process.

The more "center" the Democratic party goes the more batshit crazy the other morons get and I'm not going to enable it or pretend it is a lesser evil anymore because in the big picture it really isn't because we are preventing ourselves from being able to actually mount any practical opposition to right wing politics.

Your school of thought has had full sway for over a generation and it has proven to be a failure almost across the board with the only real progress made on gay equality and that is because the people that pushed the hardest ignored the fuck out of you and fought like hell with no regard to offending the fake center conservatives that supposedly ever sell out and fuck up is designed to appease but actually it seems the independents are the first people sent scurrying away in response.

NYC Liberal

(20,135 posts)
54. Nope, Hillary Clinton is a liberal.
Sun May 17, 2015, 11:14 AM
May 2015
It’s true that Clinton sat on the Wal-Mart board for six years while her husband was governor of Arkansas, where the chain has its corporate headquarters. She was paid about $18,000 a year for doing it. At the time, she worked at the Rose Law Firm, which had represented Wal-Mart in various matters.

But according to accounts from other board members, Clinton was a thorn in the side of the company’s founder, Sam Walton, on the matter of promoting women, few of whom were in the ranks of managers or executives at the time. She also strongly advocated for more environmentally sound corporate practices. She made limited progress in both areas. In 2005 she returned a $5,000 contribution from Wal-Mart, citing “serious differences” with its “current” practices.

Reich was even more gladdened by Hillary's passionate condemnation of corporate-executive compensation—one of the Labor Secretary's favorite populist topics. "These are real issues, Bill," she said, pointing out that the average CEO of a big company "is now earning 200 times the average hourly wage. Twenty years ago the ratio was about forty times ... People all over this country are really upset about this." When Bill demurred, saying he couldn't be "out front" on such issues, Hillary said sharply, "Well, somebody in the administration ought to be making these arguments," turning to Reich. "I agree," replied Bill with a nod.

Let’s finally do something about the growing economic inequality that is tearing our country apart. The top 1% of our households hold 22% of our nation’s wealth. That is the highest concentration of wealth in a very small number of people since 1929. So let’s close that gap. Let’s start holding corporate America responsible, make them pay their fair share again. Enough with the corporate welfare. Enough with the golden parachutes. And enough with the tax incentives for companies to shift jobs overseas.


We need diversion, like drug courts. Non-violent offenders should not be serving hard time in our prisons. They need to be diverted from our prison system. We need to make sure that we do deal with the distinction between crack and powder cocaine. And ultimately we need an attorney general and a system of justice that truly does treat people equally, and that has not happened under this administration.

I have spoken out on my belief that we should have drug courts that would serve as alternatives to the traditional criminal justice system for low-level offenders. If the person comes before the court, agrees to stay clean, is subjected to drug tests once a week, they are diverted from the criminal justice system. We need more treatment. It is unfair to urge people to get rid of their addiction and not have the treatment facilities when people finally makes up their minds to get treatment.


  • Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
  • Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
  • Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
  • Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
  • Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
  • Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
  • Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
  • Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
  • Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
  • Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
  • Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
  • Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
  • Supports tradable emissions permits for greenhouse gases. (Aug 2000)
  • Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)
  • Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)
  • Require public notification when nuclear releases occur. (Mar 2006)
  • Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)
  • Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness. (Nov 2007)
  • Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025. (Jan 2007)
  • Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards. (Jan 2008)
  • Gas tax holiday for the summer. (Apr 2008)

I think we need to give people about $650, if they qualify--which will be millions of people--to help pay their energy bills this winter. There are so many people on fixed incomes and working people who are not going to be able to afford the spike in energy costs. And then we will have money for rebates, but let’s make them the right rebates. A lot of our seniors on fixed incomes don’t pay income taxes. But that doesn’t mean they’re immune from the energy costs.


  • Count Every Vote Act: end voting discrimination by race. (Jun 2007)
  • Voted YES on granting the District of Columbia a seat in Congress. (Sep 2007)
  • Voted NO on requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections. (Jul 2007)
  • Voted NO on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress. (Mar 2006)
  • Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity. (Mar 2006)
  • Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
  • Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)
  • Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations. (Apr 2001)
  • Voluntary public financing for all general elections. (Aug 2000)
  • Criminalize false or deceptive info about elections. (Nov 2005)
  • Reject photo ID requirements for voting. (Sep 2005)
  • Post earmarks on the Internet before voting on them. (Jan 2006)
  • Establish the United States Public Service Academy. (Mar 2007)
  • Prohibit voter intimidation in federal elections. (Mar 2007)
  • Prohibit 'voter caging' which intimidates minority voting. (Nov 2007)


Clinton’s foes say she doesn’t deserve credit for expanding federal health insurance, a claim Clinton has made literally thousands of times. She “got health insurance for six million kids,” according to one ad.

We review the record and conclude that she deserves plenty of credit, both for the passage of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) legislation and for pushing outreach efforts to translate the law into reality.


If you don’t start out trying to get universal health care, we know--and our members of Congress know--you’ll never get there. If a Democrat doesn’t stand for universal health care that includes every single American, you can see the consequences of what that will mean. It is imperative that we have plans, as both John and I do, that from the very beginning say, “You know what? Everybody has got to be covered.” There’s only three ways of doing it. You can have a single-payer system, you can require employers, or you can have individual responsibility. My plan combines employers and individual responsibility, while maintaining Medicare and Medicaid. The whole idea of universal health care is such a core Democratic principle that I am willing to go to the mat for it. I’ve been there before. I will be there again. I am not giving in; I am not giving up; and I’m not going to start out leaving 15 million Americans out of health care.


She bitterly condemned the greed of health insurers, who she said were pushing the United States “to the brink of bankruptcy.”


  • Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)
  • Voted NO on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium. (Mar 2008)
  • Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007)
  • Voted NO on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006)
  • Voted YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)
  • Voted YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005)
  • Voted YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005)
  • Voted NO on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
  • Voted YES on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
  • Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
  • Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)


  • Voted NO on cutting $221M in benefits to Filipinos who served in WWII US Army. (Apr 2008)
  • Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
  • Voted YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months. (Jul 2007)
  • Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (Mar 2007)
  • Voted YES on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)
  • Voted YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (Sep 2006)
  • Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
  • Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)
  • Voted YES on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005)
  • Voted YES on restoring $565M for states' and ports' first responders. (Mar 2005)
  • Federalize aviation security. (Nov 2001)
  • Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record. (Dec 2003)


Following two and a half years of study, members of Bill’s Advisory Co until on Social Security offered proposals for investing a portion of Social Security retirement funds in the stock market. Hillary reacted emphatically to the report, telling her husband, “We mustn’t let Social Security be privatized.”

Social Security is one of the greatest inventions in American democracy, and I will do everything possible to protect & defend it, starting with getting back to fiscal responsibility, instead of borrowing from the Social Security trust fund. We need to provide some additional opportunities for people to invest, on top of their base guarantee of Social Security, more of a chance to build their nest egg. The risky scheme to privatize would cost between $1 and $2 trillion. That would undermine the promise of Social Security.

Rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record

At a time when her contemporaries were challenging the authority of college administrators, she steered the antiwar movement at Wellesley away from the kind of confrontation that convulsed other campuses.

Still, Hillary and her class were responsible for greater changes at Wellesley than any in its history. Black Studies was added to the curriculum. A summer Upward Bound program for inner-city children was initiated, antiwar activities were conducted in college facilities, the skirt rule had been rescinded, grades were given on a pass-fail basis, and interdisciplinary majors were permitted. One of Hillary’s strengths as a leader, still evident, was her willingness to participate in the drudgery of government rather than simply direct policy.


I’m relieved that the intelligence community has reached this conclusion, but I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing’s changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change. I have for two years advocated diplomatic engagement with Iran, and I think that’s what the president should do.


VoteMatch Responses
Strongly Favors topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's right
(+5 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 2:
Require hiring more women & minorities
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 3:
Same-sex domestic partnership benefits
(+5 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 4:
Teacher-led prayer in public schools
(+2 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 9:
Mandatory Three Strikes sentencing laws
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Favors topic 5:
More federal funding for health coverage
(-3 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 7:
Parents choose schools via vouchers
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 18:
Replace coal & oil with alternatives
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Opposes topic 19:
Drug use is immoral: enforce laws against it
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 11:
Make taxes more progressive
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Favors topic 12:
Illegal immigrants earn citizenship
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 16:
Stricter limits on political campaign funds
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 14:
The Patriot Act harms civil liberties
(+5 points on Social scale)



Sources: http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MineralMan

(146,288 posts)
48. That's what primary elections are about.
Sun May 17, 2015, 10:19 AM
May 2015

Voting in this country is a group thing. Primary elections let voters choose the candidates who will be on the general election ballot. So, you should always vote for the candidate you support the most in primary elections. If the group of voters also votes in the majority, or the plurality, for that candidate, he or she will be on the general election ballot.

However, if the candidate you prefer in the primaries does not win, the group of voters have decided in favor of another candidate. One person, one vote. In general elections, almost always, you have a binary choice. You can vote for a Democrat or a Republican in most partisan races. There may be third party candidates, too, but they are unlikely to win in most races.

You may have very strong views, but that does not mean that your views will prevail. It is the entire group of voters that decides who is the winner. That's the system we use. In any election, you can choose not to vote at all, of course. In that case, however, your voice is silent and you have no role in the decision. Nobody hears or benefits from your opinion.

Voting is a choice in the United States. Make your choice count for something.

 

Adrahil

(13,340 posts)
49. It's called politics.
Sun May 17, 2015, 10:20 AM
May 2015

We have a two party system, like it or not. That's the reality we have to deal with.

 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
59. Vote for the primary candidate that best reflects your preferred position
Sun May 17, 2015, 01:18 PM
May 2015

Do I think Sanders is likely to win? No. But I'm glad he's running as I think it will help strengthen the nominee (whether it's Sanders, Clinton, or somebody else) and will promote a greater range of ideas.

MH1

(17,600 posts)
62. We need to use a "ranked-choice" voting system, but we don't.
Sun May 17, 2015, 01:30 PM
May 2015

That said, I tried for a few years to get dems (IRL and at DU) to support ranked-choice voting and there was less than zero interest.

So screw it. You get to vote your principles in the primary. Then whoever the majority of the voters pick is your candidate for the general. If that's the "lesser" in your opinion, too bad. You can then either cast a vote that helps the less bad candidate, or a vote that helps the worst candidate. Whoever you go to sleep with that night, you wake up with yourself.

If we used rank-choice voting then you could vote for your principles with your first choice, and the pragmatic choice with your second. In that way elections would more accurately reflect the will of the voters. But in a country where large swaths can't even comprehend the basic principles of biological evolution, and/or think that 7 billion human beings rampantly and recklessly spewing tons of carbon into the climate while geo-engineering the planet couldn't possibly make a difference to climate ... yeah I'm not holding my breath for us to implement a voting system that requires 2 brain cells to rub together in order to understand it.

aikoaiko

(34,169 posts)
63. This is the way it's always been.
Sun May 17, 2015, 01:45 PM
May 2015

In primary elections, vote for the most principled person who can win the general.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»So does it come down to t...