I experienced an observation crystalizing event today ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

Last edited Mon Oct 13, 2014, 11:36 PM - Edit history (1)

I noticed a near perfect over-lap of that segment of DU that routinely post pro-Sanders/Warren posts and/or anti-HRC posts, that say very little about Sanders/Warren and spend most of the post criticizing HRC for what she will do; and those, arguing/recing posts arguing it's not enough to vote against something ... people need something to vote FOR. (And vice-a-versa)

I wonder which position they don't believe?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. What?

I read this, didn't understand it, waited a while to see what other folks would comment, still no comments.

So I guess I have to ask outright, can you reword this so that I can actually understand what you're saying?

I think you're saying that you have some mental Venn diagram of people on DU, and that you seem to be saying people who are against Clinton and for Warren or Sanders are also the same people who say people need something to vote FOR, not simply something to vote against (ie 'Republicans suck').

But I don't understand what else you're trying to say, or what the final sentence means.

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. Yes ...

that IS what I was trying to say! ... and the converse: people who are saying that people need something to vote FOR, not simply something to vote against (ie 'Republicans suck') are posting/recing pro-Warren and Sanders that are merely anti-HRC.

(Disclaimer: I have not, and will not, take a position regarding 2016 AFTER 2014)

[brer cat]

2. Interesting observation, 1SBM.

My guess is that the anti-HRC posters find it easier to bash her than come up with comprehensive arguments to support another candidate. Maybe that will be easier to accomplish once we have a slate of candidates actually running instead of mostly speculation about who will be on board.

I have been frustrated many times during election cycles by what I see as too much "anti" and not enough "this is why I think you should support x." It would certainly make for a more informative debate here on DU.

[RKP5637]

5. Definitely! One problem I have with democrats is often they tear each other apart than focusing on

a good benefit analysis for particular candidates and move forward. Often IMO the useless noise level gets too high.

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. In my most fond dream ...

candidates would ignore their opponent and campaign on what THEY will try to do and why they think it appropriate; rather than, arguing focus group tested distortions of their opponent's positions.

[SheilaT]

3. I can tell you that my problem with

HRC is that I do not feel that I would be voting for something. If, and oh, god I hope it doesn't happen, she becomes the nominee, it will be very hard for me to vote for her because I do not see her as the kind of President we need. She'll happily keep us in wars, she'll enthusiastically bail out big businesses and keep their taxes low, and maybe she'll even succumb to demands to change Social Security.

Yes, no matter who the Republicans nominate it will be a worse choice, but not that much of a worse choice.

I tend not to go on about why I think so highly of Warren (I don't see Sanders as remotely viable for a lot of reasons, and his age is a bigger drawback than his current Independent status) in part because I feel as if it doesn't need explicating. She really is on the side of the little people. She really does stand up to the banks and the big corporations. She gets it that middle class and working class families are desperate. But any time anyone her tries to say good things about a Warren candidacy, the HRC folks jump back with, "But SHE'S NOT RUNNING!!" As if Clinton is officially. Plus, the HRC folks go on and on about how she's inevitable, about how there's no one else who could possibly win. It's as if 2008 didn't happen. She was inevitable then, remember?

There's also a decided disconnect between the enthusiasm for HRC among many people here, and the fact that she is not widely admired or thought of as a potential President in the country at large. If she's our nominee, it will really be a dreadful and dirty campaign.

[RKP5637]

6. I will vote for and support whomever the candidate is ... that said,

one problem I do have with Hillary, is I feel like I would be voting for a power broker, that she would be with the oligarchy in this country. FDR, for example, was wealthy and powerful, but he sided often with many of the less monied in life. I don't think Hillary is a FDR type at all. I had hoped for that with Obama.

I agree, I don't see Bernie as electable for the reasons you said. I do like Warren, maybe she is the type of president we need for massive change in this country, but I wonder if she has the political machinery to be electable.

Whatever, 2016 is going to be a nasty time, with hoards of money being thrown around. It is pathetic IMO that how much money one has is the key factor in electability in this country. USA, Incorporated.

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. See? eom.

[davidpdx]

9. That doesn't describe me, but you did say near perfect

I have been (will continue to be) very critical of Clinton, but I do not support Sanders or Warren at this point. I am willing to consider either if they run.

I will have a very difficult time supporting Clinton, as will my mother. This past summer when I was home we happened to be talking about it and politics very rarely comes up between us.

[anti partisan]

10. I'm not voting for a war hawk. Period.

I got into Democratic politics because of Bush's wars. Now the big wigs in the Democratic party seem to have left me. I'm sure there's many others who feel the same way.

[Sancho]

11. I will vote for the Democratic candidate....

any Democrat will be better than the absolutely crazy Tea Party and repubs that we've seen lately.

Obama hasn't been perfect. Hillary, Warren, or Sanders won't be perfect. Regardless of who is your favorite, we need to win the elections. We are all aware of what we think the issues are that would make our favorite candidates better and what we think the problems are with the candidates we don't like. Frankly, we sometimes assume candidates will be something that they really aren't when they are in office. Is everyone happy with ACA or the US war machine or with immigration policy? Probably not, but Obama is soooo much better than Romney would have been!!

Can you imagine how different our world would have been if Gore had been in office instead of GW!?!?! Even those who stood up for principle and voted for Nader should admit they could have had Gore instead of GW! How did that work out for you?

No matter who is our candidate, I will work to move them towards a progressive agenda - and all of us will be more successful getting what we believe in with ANY Democrat instead of Romney, Jeb, Cristie, or whomever the GOP puts up.

Everyone on DU needs to spend all that extra energy going after the GOP instead of finding ways to go after Democrats.