Dear Dems who will “Never vote for Hillary”:

[Cyrano]

I sympathize. I empathize. I understand. I get it.

The Republican candidate will be Trump or Cruz. Either one of them would be a disaster for this country and the world.

Do you really want one of those mentally demented mutants to occupy the Oval Office? Are you really ready for the horrors they would visit upon us and the rest of the world? Seriously. Are you really ready for that?

Our nominee in the general election next November will be either Bernie or Hillary. I will vote for either one of them. And I will drag everyone I know to the polls to vote for our nominee.

Many of you here have stated you won’t vote for Hillary under any circumstances. That’s your anger speaking. Stop, for one moment, and check with your brain. Do you really want Trump, Cruz, or any other Republican in the White House?

And then there’s the Senate. We’ve got a good chance of retaking it. Not voting is really not an option when you think of a Republican Prez, a Republican Senate and a Republican House of Representatives. (We can't win the House, but we can win the Presidency and the Senate.)

And let's not forget that the next president will be selecting three or four Supreme Court justices.

So here’s the bottom line. Stop threatening to not vote if Bernie isn’t the nominee. If you actually carry out your threat, then you are, in effect, voting for the fascist/bigoted/know-nothing/American fascists. I know that you don’t really want to do that. But that will be the result of sitting out the election.

So let me implore you to please, please, vote for the Dem candidate whoever he/she turns out to be.

The Republican Party has gone over the edge of the cliff. Are you prepared to follow them?

[randome]

1. Vote for the greater good is my way of looking at it.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[djean111]

2. Is this the first one of these today?

That's why I wish we had a separate group for them.

The time for this is after the primaries. Right now, it is just annoying noise.

[revbones]

46. It seems like 10 per day. Sheesh give it a break Hillary supporters!!! nt

[Cyrano]

60. Actually, I'm a Bernie supporter

Many here (most?) will call that bullshit. Believe what you will.

Nonetheless, I'll vote for Hillary if she's the Dem candidate.

I really live in fear of what Trump or Cruz would do to this country. And at last, I understand the sickness that encompassed Germany in the 1920s and 1930s that ended up with the Holocaust.

[revbones]

61. Ok, so you're a Bernie supporter

That doesn't change the fact that there are like 10+ posts per day primarily by Hillary supporters asking Bernie supporters to basically suck it up if she wins the nomination. It's gotten really old.

Living in fear AND expecting others to seems to make it very hard to sway someone else.

[840high]

66. Vote as you please. I will do same.

Tired of the posts - everyday.

[srobert]

111. That's your fear speaking.

"Many of you here have stated you won’t vote for Hillary under any circumstances. That’s your anger speaking."

No, it's a calculated response. If large numbers of progressives cast their votes for the Green party this year (unless we get Sanders as the nominee) it will assure that Democrats start trying to appeal to progressives in the upcoming elections in 2018, 2020, 2022 and 2024. We've calculated that we can survive 4 years of a Trump or Cruz Presidency, if on the other side of it we get more progressive government. But first we have to get rid of the DINO's.

As you said, your refusal to join us in demanding that Democrats start acting like Democrats, well, that's your fear speaking. What would Franklin Roosevelt say about that?

[MineralMan]

68. I don't know. Why does that matter?

DUers can post their thinking on things. If you disagree with their opinion, you can freely counter it. But suggesting that they not post because you disagree is kind of not really the point of a discussion forum, I think.

I'm a Democrat because I've seen over the years that the country does better when Democrats are in power. That doesn't mean that I always agree with what a particular Democrat does on any particular issue. It means that Democrats in power are more beneficial for our country than Republicans. How beneficial depends on many factors, like whether they can get Congress to agree to their goals.

But, when the general election rolls around, I vote for the Democrat who is the nominee for every office. That's a principal for me. I wish for good results. I tend to get better ones when Democrats win.

I wish people would stop attacking DUers for posting their opinions about the election. If you can argue the point intelligently, then why not do that, perhaps?

I don't know, but a little collegiality would be a good thing on a site for Democrats to discuss politics, it seems to me. I'm not seeing much of that lately.

[djean111]

70. OPs like these are not about discussing issues.

They are, basically, telling people how to vote.

[MineralMan]

75. That's one way to look at them. Here's another way:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511496541

[djean111]

81. I read that post already. It is very nice. Why do we need things like this before a nominee is

chosen? To be considering this now, for me, is like me saying oh, I am okay with war and fracking and cluster bombs and the TPP - because A Democrat is doing that to me and mine. Nope.

[MineralMan]

82. But, see, I'm not stumping for either candidate.

I'll gladly vote for either of them, and for the reasons I laid out in that thread.

[djean111]

84. Again, there is no need for that at this point in time.

I know you mean well, I really do! You are one of the loveliest DUers!

[MineralMan]

85. I disagree, I guess. I think there's never a bad time for GOTV

efforts. Especially Democratic Party GOTV efforts. That's what I do, mostly. And I'm always ready to do them.

[restorefreedom]

79. IN, R? you are absolutely correct

we need a separate group for loyalty related discussion

jeez, this is getting tiring

[leftofcool]

3. Let them vote for who ever they want to or not

In the long run, Hillary will win the nomination and she will beat Donald Trump or Ted Cruz either one.

[quickesst]

8. I agree...

Way too much hand-wringing, and making a mountain out of a molehill. A very loud molehill.

[revbones]

47. Sure. We'll see. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. No. You're wrong.

you are, in effect, voting for the fascist/bigoted/know-nothing/American fascists.

No, I won't be voting for Trump any other Republican. And, if Hillary gets the nomination I won't vote for her.

Trump won't get my vote if I don't vote for Hillary.

0 - 0 = 0

[Cyrano]

11. Check you math

Not voting for a Dem could result in a Republican in the White House.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

31. 0 - 0 = 0

0 + 0.

And, if I do vote for a Dem a Republican could end up in the White House. It's happened a number of times before.

I voted for McGovern(D) Nixon won.

I voted for Carter - Reagan won

I voted for Mondale(D) Reagan won

I voted for Dukakis(D) Poppy Bush won.

I voted for Gore(D) Bush won

I voted for Kerry(D) Bush won

If I had voted for neither candidate, voted for a third party candidate, the results would have been the same.

[quickesst]

17. Dead wrong

Your vote will neutralize a vote for Trump. It's called logic. A non-vote will be helping Trump. Congratulations.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. No. It will be helping the person I vote for.

Neither Trump nor Hillary will benefit from my vote.

Logically speaking: I don't want either of them to be president. To vote for either of them wouldn't make any kind of "logical" sense.

[quickesst]

91. If Hillary is the nominee...

... your vote won't help anyone except trump or cruz. In that scenario no one else has a snowball's chance in hell of becoming president. Like I said logic over misguided ego. It's a great thing. Not worried about it though, because there will be enough people who do use it to put her well over the top.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

93. Well, at least I won't waste my vote.

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost. John Quincy Adams

[quickesst]

95. Yeah...

.... you will.

[revbones]

49. It's called math. Perhaps you should revisit it...

0 + 0 = 0

By not voting for Hillary, it isn't giving a vote to the Republican. Get over it.

That crappy logic says that even if you give your vote to Hillary and she lost, you'd still be to blame because you just didn't do enough.

[quickesst]

92. Haha....

Well, that makes a lot of nonsense. Thanks for explaining it to me.

[Coincidence]

77. So when is a vote for Clinton ever just a vote for Clinton? nt

[quickesst]

94. I...

... don't know where to go with that.

[My Good Babushka]

5. It's Hillary voters' fault if Bernie doesn't get elected

I won't be blackmailed into voting for an arms dealer who is itching for expanding war in the Middle East. Better to vote for no one.
Maybe centrist, corporate, war-hungry democrats need the liberal progressive scared back into them. Maybe if it gets worse, it will get better in my children's lifetime.

[vintx]

13. +1

[WDIM]

18. this^^

I cannot vote against my conscience and the blood on Hillary's hands is unforgiveable.

I will not vote for a war monger backed by war profiteers.

[marew]

72. Right on! n/t

[Kittycat]

27. Blood is on the hands of Hillary supporters, not mine.

[Dawgs]

28. You got it. n/t

[leftofcool]

29. Bernie isn't going to win the nomination so his getting "elected" is not even a possibility

[dana_b]

34. You are wrong

[leftofcool]

41. Math works

[revbones]

50. Yes, and as such you should avoid making predictions that don't employ it... nt

[dana_b]

33. Exactly. If Hillary wins the nomination

And Trump wins (very likely), the Hillary supporters SHOULD have backed the only true progressive OLD school Dem in the race - Bernie.

[Carolina]

115. K&R, MGB

I have reached a point where voting for the not so lesser of two evils is simply not palatable. And yes,
maybe the country needs to hit rock bottom, as all empires do, before the sheeple wake up.

I cannot and will not vote for $hillary in the general and no amount of shaming or fear mongering will change that.

[tk2kewl]

6. If you don't "want one of those mentally demented mutants to occupy the Oval Office..."

consider this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511494971

Democrats versus Trump

Sanders [div style="display: inline-block; font-size: 8px;"](RCP avgs 2/10 - 3/6)
[div][div style="display: table-cell; text-align: center; font-weight: bold; font-size: 10px; white-space: nowrap; overflow: visible; width: 20px; background-color: rgba(0,0,0,0.2);"][div style="display: table-cell; text-align: center; font-weight: bold; font-size: 10px;background-color: blue;color: white; white-space: nowrap; overflow: visible; width: 400px"]+10Clinton [div style="display: inline-block; font-size: 8px;"](RCP avgs 2/11 - 3/6)
[div][div style="display: table-cell; text-align: center; font-weight: bold; font-size: 10px; white-space: nowrap; overflow: visible; width: 20px; background-color: rgba(0,0,0,0.2);"][div style="display: table-cell; text-align: center; font-weight: bold; font-size: 10px; background-color: red; color: white; white-space: nowrap; overflow: visible; width: 252px"]+6.3


Democrats versus Cruz

Sanders [div style="display: inline-block; font-size: 8px;"](RCP avgs 2/10 - 2/27)
[div][div style="display: table-cell; text-align: center; font-weight: bold; font-size: 10px; white-space: nowrap; overflow: visible; width: 32px; background-color: rgba(0,0,0,0.2);"][div style="display: table-cell; text-align: center; font-weight: bold; font-size: 10px;background-color: blue;color: white; white-space: nowrap; overflow: visible; width: 388px"]+9.7Clinton [div style="display: inline-block; font-size: 8px;"](RCP avgs 2/10 - 3/6)
[div][div style="display: table-cell; text-align: center; font-weight: bold; font-size: 10px;background-color: red;color: white; white-space: nowrap; overflow: visible; width: 32px"]-0.8[div style="display: table-cell; text-align: center; font-weight: bold; font-size: 10px; white-space: nowrap; overflow: visible; width: 388px"]


Democrats versus Rubio

Sanders [div style="display: inline-block; font-size: 8px;"](RCP avgs 2/10 - 2/27)
[div][div style="display: table-cell; text-align: center; font-weight: bold; font-size: 10px; white-space: nowrap; overflow: visible; width: 160px; background-color: rgba(0,0,0,0.2);"][div style="display: table-cell; text-align: center; font-weight: bold; font-size: 10px;background-color: blue;color: white; white-space: nowrap; overflow: visible; width: 132px"]+3.3Clinton [div style="display: inline-block; font-size: 8px;"](RCP avgs 2/10 - 3/6)
[div][div style="display: table-cell; text-align: center; font-weight: bold; font-size: 10px;background-color: red;color: white; white-space: nowrap; overflow: visible; width: 160px"]-4[div style="display: table-cell; text-align: center; font-weight: bold; font-size: 10px; white-space: nowrap; overflow: visible; width: 132px"]

[div style="font-size: 10px"]
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_Clinton_vs._Republicans.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/sanders_vs._republicans.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_sanders-5742.html


...and then vote for Bernie!

[Kall]

7. More loyalty oath stuff.

Hillary really should have thought of this before she started pulling Republican talking points against Bernie for single-payer health care and proceeded from there. And who says people won't be voting for the House and Senate?

[Doctor_J]

9. These posts are getting really tired.

Posting them three times a week doesn't help, especially during the primary. I haven't seen anyone say they won't vote (D) for Senate and house and whatever other offices are up for election. And if Trump or Cruz is that bad, Mrs. Clinton won't need the liberal votes to win comfortably anyway.

[FSogol]

10. Thanks for trying.

[Cyrano]

15. Seems it's just another waste of keystrokes. Sigh.

[Svafa]

36. It is.

Because we've heard this a thousand times before. Very few, if any, minds are being changed by these pleas.

[daleanime]

12. Isn't nice that we're left with this 'no choice' choice....

decades of voting for the lesser evil still accumulates.

[Svafa]

14. These loyalty oaths are getting very old.

And then there’s the Senate. We’ve got a good chance of retaking it. Not voting is really not an option when you think of a Republican Prez, a Republican Senate and a Republican House of Representatives. (We can't win the House, but we can win the Presidency and the Senate.)

And who said that the "Bernie or Bust" crowd won't vote for downticket candidates? Most of the ones I've heard from absolutely plan to vote, just not for Clinton.

[Cyrano]

19. Nobody asked for a "loyalty oath."

Republicans do that. (Most) Democrats are capable of rational thought.

[Svafa]

23. Begging people to vote party over principle sounds like a loyalty oath to me. nt

[revbones]

51. Hear Hear!!! nt

[revbones]

16. I like how you psychoanalyze people when they probably just have principles...

"That’s your anger speaking." is both untrue and patronizing.

It's not anger, it's that some people just can't pull the lever for someone so corrupt.

[leftofcool]

30. Then don't. Your vote is your own.

I don't see what all the hang wringing is about.

[revbones]

52. It's Hillary supporters hand-wringing about the possibility Bernie supporters won't vote for her nt

Hillary.

[virgista]

20. Democrats in reliably Blue States don't have to vote for Hillary. Why make them

go against their strong moral instincts? If Blue States become purple, then Hillary has lost. Similarly, you don't have to vote for HRC if you're in a very red state.

The question then, is whether to vote for the Green Party or to write Bernie in. Be sure to vote in any case. There will be other issues and candidates on the ballot that need your vote.

[Cyrano]

22. We saw what happened in 2000 when

Floridians voted for Nader.

[Svafa]

26. More Florida Dems voted for Bush than voted for Nader,

but of course the ones who voted Nader were the ones responsible for Bush "winning."

[HooptieWagon]

88. 13% Dems voted for Bush. 1% voted for Nader.

And it wasn't the liberal left voting for Bush...that was the conservative corporatist wing of the party.

[virgista]

64. I'm not sure whether FL is/was a "reliably Blue" state. More of a battleground state.

I'm talking about WA, OR. CA, NY, etc. If it's close in these states, then the battleground states are probably flipped red and the election is lost (beyond horrible to think of..) to the Democrats.

Actually the only de facto Democrat in this race is Bernie. But that's another topic.

[WDIM]

21. If you dont want Republicans and neocons to win

Vote for Bernie Sanders!

[Waiting For Everyman]

24. The faulty premise in your argument is

you fail to see that Hillary is every bit as grotesquely unacceptable and dangerous as the Republicans. In fact, I can't think of one reason why she isn't one of them. Her choices would be just as bad. Her judgment is just as scary. You really don't get it.

There is only one acceptable person running this time, and we'd better hope to goodness he wins, Primary and General, or we're screwed.

[leftofcool]

42. So, vote for Trump then

Your choice, your vote.

[Waiting For Everyman]

53. That's what Hillary voters will be doing.

Edit: Oh, you meant the General. It's too late then.

[Herman4747]

63. Think for a moment, say with regards to the Supreme Court.

Hillary's own husband appointed Breyer & Ginsburg, both of whom voted against the majority in Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, Heller, etc.
I think we can safely assume she's not going to appoint a Scalia type, but instead someone like those her husband appointed.
Cruz would of course appoint a Scalia type.
The Donald would likely appoint some crazy shyster.

Turning our attention to foreign policy, we consider first the foreign policy of the Clinton Administration. While it was not the best, we can conclude that it was better than that for Bush II, Reagan, and Nixon. Despite her bizarre fondness for Kissinger, we can expect Hillary's foreign policy to largely match that of her husband. The Donald & Cruz, on the other hand, are both quite belligerent.

[virgista]

65. Dear Herman, you forget Hilary's disastrous foreign policy record as Sec. of State. Re: Libya,

Honduras, the Maldives. And she's been more than belligerent in her plans for Syria. On her second debate she stated that she wants to instate a no-fly zone over Syria and is happy to confront Russia.

There does seem to be definite difference between appetites for conflict between her and her husband.

[Cyrano]

86. You forgot to mention she killed Vince Foster

Not to mention Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi.

One could easily drown in the sea of shit floating around this site.

[Pat Riots]

104. oh are we doing false equivilience now?

why should someone have to bring up Benghazi when discussing the Hondouras coup, which Hillary herself wrote about in her own book? (she wanted to recognise the coup if they would hold new elections, iirc)

Libiya = Vince Foster? are you kidding?

so, it is now a right wing smear to vet our own potential nominee in the area of foriegn policy...?

ok, then.....

[Waiting For Everyman]

67. I'm not at all assured that she would appoint good justices

any better than the others would. She is 100% sold out. She will do whatever is good for those who pay her, of that I have zero doubt. That is usually pretty bad for the public.

Her foreign policy has been a fiasco as well. She can't even email without a huge problem. Most people, I think, are believing her image without noticing that she is vastly mediocre and without any functioning character. I think she will do 100% of what she thinks she can get away with, her campaign is a demonstration of that very fact.

[Herman4747]

74. SHE'S NOT GOING TO APPOINT A SCALIA-TYPE TO...

...THE U.S. SUPREME COURT!
Deep down in your heart and setting aside your justifiable anger toward her, do you truly think she would nominate someone vastly different than the two appointments her husband made?

Right now, there are four liberals on the Supreme Court, and 4 conservatives. If our president nominates someone like Ginsburg or Breyer (both of whom voted against the majority in Citizens United), then we have a 5 to 4 majority in our favor. That has great implications going forward.
If, on the other hand, a Republican president is the one doing the nominating, we again return to being down five to four, and with other Supreme Court justices likely on their way toward retirement soon too (e.g., Breyer, Kennedy, Thomas maybe, etc.), all this could be quite problematic. And if it is five to four against us for decades, then for decades Citizens United and other problems will be the rule of the land.

In November, if you live in a battleground, toss-up state, don't think of punching the ballot by Hillary's name as a vote for her; think instead of it as a vote against Republican stupidity.

[Waiting For Everyman]

78. I'm not angry at her

I think there's something wrong with her, just as there's something wrong with the other Republicans. The only difference is, she's a little smoother much like a Carly Fiorina with different talking points.

Yes, I do think she could appoint a horror-story judge, only s/he would probably have a very smooth persona and be very good at wrapping garbage in devious logic, probably one of the banker lawyers.

All of these folks, Repubs and Hillary, are exceedingly dangerous in my book.

[NowSam]

25. Voting against the other guys

is not a compelling reason to vote for a candidate. May I suggest that candidates use hope and not fear to get out the vote.

Tell me what good your candidate will do. Tell me how honest and trustworthy she is. Tell me that she is consistent in her positions and record over many years and exactly why she is qualified, in your opinion, to be the president.

I won't be intimidated into voting for her or voting at all unless I believe in the candidate. give me something to believe in. Bernie inspires me. If not him, then find me a candidate I can believe in like him.

[noamnety]

32. Number of Days Without a Loyalty Oath

[ebayfool]

97. Wish there was a rec for posts button I could pound a brazillion times! Yes, yes, yes you get it!

It's like being hounded during the wedding for the terms of the divorce to follow!

[Yurovsky]

35. YOU ARE FREE TO DO AS WE TELL YOU!!!

I will NEVER, in a million years, vote for a corporate shill who enriches himself or herself on the blood, sweat, and tears of the poor and working class. Where do you think the $$$ came from in all of those millions HRC took in from Wall Street? These corporate bastards are crushing us, and you suggest we should align ourselves with the very forces doing the crushing?

NOT JUST NO, BUT HELL NO.

I refuse to submit to the forces seeking to enslave me and millions of others struggling to survive in an economy that is rigged for the 1%. I can't stop the Clinton voters from voluntarily surrendering to these forces, but I will not, and if Trump or Cruz or some other GOP fascist POS wins in November, we'll deal wth that by whatever means necesaasry. In fact, that will probably be better for the opposition, because the GOP won't have co-opted half the Democratic Party like Hillary.

Hillary is as much a progressive as I am the King of Sweden. Her election would not serve the progressive movement, it would merely serve her corporate Wall Street masters. No thanks.

[Carolina]

116. K&R

Excellent post! Exactly my sentiments, but stated so eloquently in your post

[MoonRiver]

37. I rec'd this because it is the correct sentiment,

but it won't change the minds of die hard haters. And, frankly, I really don't give a damn what they do. I.really.don't.

[leftofcool]

43. I agree! Hillary will get all of the Dems and Left leaning Indies on board

The few on DU won't matter.

[MoonRiver]

71. Yep, it's really silly to pearl clutch over this place.

Go Hill!

[NV Whino]

38. Mineral Man, is that you?

[pintobean]

59. Lol

[MineralMan]

69. You rang?

No, it's not me, but we share that opinion. It's not my thread. If you would like to discuss something with me, it won't be hard to find one of my threads. I might not see your thoughtful question if you post it in someone else's thread.

In fact, here's one for you, written in response to your call to me:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511496541

[Zorra]

39. Before I ever agree to vote for Hillary in the GE, I will need the Dem Establishment to give me the

pet Unicorn that I ask for, prior to the vote. After suffering through years of abuse, my vote is my vote and mine alone, and it can no longer be taken for granted by the Third Way. Not ever again.

This is known as "leverage". (pun intended)

Right now, my preferred pet Unicorn looks a lot like a set in stone contract for an Executive Order, publicly backed by the Dem Establishment, shutting down all fracking operations in the US. I already know that Bernie Sanders has a plan to give me my pet Unicorn. I don't expect Hillary will get the nomination, but I'm making my needs known just in case the unthinkable occurs and she wins the Dem nomination fair and square..

Empty promises, lip service, and simply "being better than a republican" will no longer accepted as satisfactory payment for my vote. I expect the utmost in integrity and service from the employees I elect to serve me.

Show me the Unicorn!

[Renaissance Man]

44. No. Trying to guilt me into voting for a flawed candidate will not work.

When her positions on the issues (sans maybe one or two) aren't different from the entire field of Republican candidates, I can't bring myself to vote for her. I don't vote for Republicans, regardless of whether there is a (D) or (R) preceding their names.

Maybe those who think that voting for a DINO to implement Republican policies is "progressive." I just tend to think that it doesn't help the average working American, you know, the person the Democratic Party used to actually consider worthy of their attention and work.

[BernieforPres2016]

45. Oh boy, another loyalty oath thread!!!!

And yet another originator of a loyalty post thread goes to the Ignore list.

When one of these people flips over to "we" have a good chance of doing this or doing that, I don't know who they are talking about. The DNC doesn't represent me.

[Xithras]

48. There is no anger in my decision to not vote for Clinton.

When it comes to the issues that drive my politics, Clinton is simply on the wrong side of each argument. Are Cruz and Trump bad? Of course, but Clinton is just as damaging to the political positions that I actually fight for. She is a pro-interventionist hawk, she supports more outsourcing of American jobs, she supports the privatization of American healthcare (which is all Obamacare really is), she is a major Wall Street supporter and she doesn't give a damn about the educational debt crisis that is cutting the economic throats of an entire generation of American youth.

Clinton is on the wrong side of nearly every issue I care about. So is Trump. So is Cruz.

Are there issues where she differs from those to her right? Of course there are. But we all have our own list of "top issues", and that list varies from person to person. Clinton simply falls on the wrong side of the political issues on MY list.

I'm a leftist first. I'm a pacifist second. I'm an environmentalist third. I'm a social libertarian fourth. "I'm a Democrat" is sixth or seventh on my list. I've never been a "hold my nose" voter...ever. I vote for what I care about, and damn the consequences. I won't vote against my own political positions...and that is EXACTLY what voting for Clinton would do.

[Maedhros]

54. I will not be bullied, coerced, shamed or cajoled into voting for any candidate.

If the Democrats want my vote, they will nominate a candidate with integrity.

[revbones]

55. It's be nice if you guys would stop with your concern trolling.

1. If Hillary supporters are sooooo concerned that democrats won't support Hillary in the general if she gets the nomination and whine that they would vote for Bernie if the shoe was on the other foot, then their choice is clear - vote for Bernie who will get the support of both groups.

2. 0 + 0 = 0. Not voting is NOT the same as voting for the other person. Math. Get over it.

3. If 0 + 0 somehow magically equaled the vote for the other candidate then by your own logic the blame never stops.

If Hillary wins the nomination, and 100% of the Bernie supporters sucked it up and voted for a corrupt candidate that violated their principles, but she still lost then by the same logic Bernie supporters are still to blame for not donating enough money for more ads.

If they donated the max but she still lost, then by that logic they're still to blame for not canvassing or phonebanking.

It goes on and on. So please, stop with all the concern-trolling, future-blaming and guilt-tripping.

[gcomeau]

56. With all due respect

...I have been the one making your argument in primaries past. This year is simply fundamentally different.


We are not talking about hurt feelings because two candidates that support our principles both vied and one team's preference didn't win and they were heart broken because they were so invested in cheering on their guy but eventually, hey, that other prson is fighting for the same things so they shake it off and get on board.


Hillary doesn't just not sufficiently support Single Payer, she OPENLY ATTACKS IT.

Hillary doesn't just not sufficiently support dealing with crushing student load debt she OPENLY DERIDES IT.

She has adopted the GOP frame of all progressive social safety net policies as giving away "free this and free that and free everything" in tones of mocking derision and condescension.

She is apparently incapable of understanding why taking millions of dollars from the very institutions she claims she's going to get tough on while refusing to tell the people she wants to make her president what she said in return for those massive payouts is wrong.


This is not "hey we're all on the same team come on everyone group hug". Not this election.


At some point you have to draw a fucking line and say you're not allowed to drag the Democratic party any further right and just keep taking progressive support for granted because the other guys are whackjobs. And it's looking an awful lot like this year that line is getting crossed for a LOT of people and they are not wrong to take that position. They just aren't. Because Clinton isn't sidling right, she's saddled up the team of horses and she's stampeding there trying to drag everyone else with her. And her fans refuse to deal with it.

[marew]

73. On target! n/t

[djean111]

89. Beautiful. Should be an OP. n/t

[Svafa]

90. Nailed it.

[Marr]

96. Especially when you stop and consider that the only reason the other party

has become dominated by whack jobs, is because the Democratic Party's leadership has been allowed to wander so far to the right, that the whack jobs are now the core demographic of the opposition party.

[davsand]

99. I was right there with the unity speech up to just recently.

Right about the time she tried to rewrite history at Nancy Reagan's funeral with her AIDS commentary I stopped considering her as anyone I can ever vote for. That SINGLE act killed any goodwill I ever had for her. I lived in that time, and I watched friends and loved ones die while St. Ronnie's people made fucking jokes about AIDS and laughed.

Doesn't matter if she "misspoke", she was spinning for votes, or if she managed to sleep thru the entire decade, she still allied herself with that and I can't and won't forgive or forget.



Laura

[joshcryer]

102. The contempt in your "respectful" post is palpable.

The stakes are far higher in this election than any before.

[gcomeau]

103. Contempt for the OP? Not at all. I understand completely where it's coming from.

Contempt for the repeated betrayal and dismissal of core progressive principles the Clinton campaign is intent on rubbing in progressives faces? I should damn well hope it's palpable, it deserves nothing less.


As for the stakes, they're always high. You can't keep using that to excuse any behavior by establishment Democrats *indefinitely*. Because allowing the Democratic party to continue it's ongoing slide into "GOP JR." is also a goddamn high stake, and it gets higher the longer we allow it to continue.



This year we FINALLY have a chance to whack the party in the other direction with a real progressive candidate who can freaking plausibly WIN. There is no excuse for not taking it.

[joshcryer]

105. You are talking about different things.

The OP is about post nomination.

There is no excuse to petulantly sit it out or vote some non Dem.

Your characterizations applies to the OP and I do see it as lacking respect.

[gcomeau]

106. I'm really not.

You simply are not grasping the situation.

Large amounts of Sanders supporting Independent voters feel precisely zero loyalty to the Democratic party precisely because they refuse to seriously champion progressive policy initiatives. Why exactly do you think they are independents in the first place? And a lot of progressive Dems are getting to the end of their ropes too.


So who they vote for in the General becomes a perpetual is it worth holding my nose and voting for "Compromised" to avoid "Completely Crazy" exercise. But as the years roll by "Compromised" keeps getting more and more right. And every year that the progressives hold their nose and vote for them anyway because the threat of crazy is being held to their throats sends the message that the Democratic establishment NEVER has to move left and NEVER has to work for the progressives. It only has to stay somewhere left of the GOP then laugh in progressives faces that they have no other alternatives.



At some point enough will be enough, and the progressives are going to decide that if a few years of Crazy are what is necessary to punish the Dem establishment and send the clear message that if they want progressive support in the GE they have to actually do something for it then fuck them... the long term benefit outweighs the short term pain, no matter how horrific the short term pain promises to be.



And we are getting DAMN close to that line this election because Clinton and her campaign seem to be absolutely enthusiastic about daring progressives to bail.

[joshcryer]

107. They won't be voting for Trump.

And that's all that matters.

[gcomeau]

109. No, that is really really NOT all that matters.

Votes lost are votes lost. That they don't flip to Trump only makes it bad and not terrible.

If you're going to take a swing state 51% to 49% with full support from the left on board... and then you subtract a big chunk of progressive voters because you drove them away those voters don't have to flip sides and vote Trump for you to still lose the damn state. And ALL it's electoral votes.

[Shadowflash]

57. I WILL vote in the GE. Make no mistake.

I ALWAYS vote.

I will vote for the candidate on the ballot that I think would be the best suited person for the job and the person who's policies and view best align with mine.

If, at the end, it's HRC, then I'll vote for her. If not, then not.

I'm hoping to have Sanders to vote for.

[rock]

58. The fact is the Clinton supporters

Can take Clinton losing the candidacy a lot better than the Bernie supporters can stand Bernie losing. It will cut them to the quick. They'll jump and bounce and scream and cry, and spit and slobber, but sooner or later run out of breath. Also I'm not so sure how many of them are real Democrats. I certainly don't think Bernie is one. So I don't blame them not wanting to vote for Hillary. We'll only have to bear with them a wile longer.

[forjusticethunders]

87. Maybe not real Democrats

But the Hillary supporters aren't real leftists (or are 10 degrees to the left of center in good times, 10 degrees to the right of center when they don't want to pay 5% higher taxes on their 20k a month paychecks for the common good) so I know who I'd rather have.

[JackRiddler]

62. Dems who will never vote for Clinton are not your problem.

It's the 2/3 of everyone else who are going to do her in, and even if they're wrong, you are not going to sway them with this argument.

(And by you I mean presumed Clinton supporters, since no one else talks about this bullshit while a nomination process is still underway. Let the people vote first, okay?)

[Senator Tankerbell]

76. Why do we need to have this discussion now?

We're in the middle of March. There will be plenty of time to persuade everyone to vote for the Democratic nominee after the convention.

[srobert]

113. Actually, it's good to have the discussion now.

It's good for people going to the primaries to know what chance their candidate has of getting enough votes to win the general. I'm letting people know up front that I need them to nominate a better candidate than Hillary, if they expect (or need) to get my support in November.

[haikugal]

80. We're done with voting the lesser evil.

DONE!

Give us genuine candidates. Give us honesty. Give us a candidate that works for the majority in this country rather than being bought and paid for corporate shills. It's time to wake up and vote like there is no tomorrow...it may be more accurate than you know.

Enough of this shit!

[Autumn]

83. A vote is a precious thing. People should use it as they chose.

[pinebox]

98. Not going to happen, sorry

People are completely over the "lesser of 2 evils" scenario and people by a huge margin don't see Hillary as being trustworthy.
Dems need to nominate a candidate who has the best chance of beating a Republican and who actually unites people, that is not Hillary by a long shot. People can't stand her.

A vote for Hillary is a vote for 50% tryhard. People won't do it and Dems are going to lose the GE should she be the nominee.
They are fed up.

[coyote]

100. Not again

[joshcryer]

101. I've never been so privileged to not vote Dem.

I can't get it at all, the stakes are higher every election. ACA would be overturned, Planned Parenthood defunded.

[ozone_man]

108. Always vote your heart, your conscience.

All other votes are for the lesser of evils. We can never change anything, if that's how we vote. The 1% will always rule, whether a Bush, or a Clinton is in office.

Vote from your heart.

[aikoaiko]

110. Too soon, bruh.

[alarimer]

112. Thanks for the lecture, I'll take it under advisement.

[Barack_America]

114. Sorry, thanks. But no.

A stand against the sham the Democratic Party has become must be taken.

[DesMoinesDem]

117. It's not the voters fault that Hillary will never be President. It's her fault.

She's a horrible person with horrible positions. She's a liar. She's corrupt. She's unlikeable. That's on her.