let's clear something up: your vote belongs to YOU

[restorefreedom]

there has been a lot of discussion lately about who should vote for whom in the primary, who should support which candidate in a general election if candidates X, Y or Z win the nomination, and, repugnant in my view, conversations about loyalty oaths and pledging to automatically support a particular candidate no matter what.

this is a democracy. We choose who we vote for in a primary, and we choose who we vote for in a general election at every level from the president all the way to local races. And while discussion forums are free to set their own rules about who we can advocate for in particular races, nobody can tell us who to vote for. And anyone who tries to bully, demand, or frighten someone into voting for a particular candidate in a particular race does not fully understand democracy.

i just wanted us all to remember that.

[jkbRN]

1. Touché!!!

[polly7]

2. My mom and dad up here wouldn't even tell each other how they were going to vote.

It was always a running joke and they wouldn't know until one was cheering and the other glum after it was all over ....... or in some cases, both cheering, or both glum. Funny to watch, as kids.

[Doctor_J]

4. My in-laws' presidential votes cancelled each other out for the whole 55 years they were married

But they both voted every time so as not to give the other the upper hand.

[polly7]

6. LOL

That's funny.

Nice to see them so involved in the outcome.

[brooklynite]

36. Did your mom and dad hang out on a political blog?

Nobody has ever DEMANDED that you reveal who you voted for in the past or who you might vote for in the future. However, this is a website where we discuss politics. Who people will vote for, and additionally the implications of not voting for the Party nominee are relevant topics for discussion. If you don't want to share, then don't, but spare us the faux outrage.

[polly7]

38. Ummmm ......... yeah ..........

no. They didn't.

What outrage? I was sharing something we found funny to watch as kids.

Your outrage is like something out of the twilight zone.

I'll post what, and where I like, thanks.





So much anger, that's going to take a toll on your health eventually, you know.

[senz]

61. Seriously.

[rhett o rick]

69. People keep asking me if I will vote for Clinton if she is the nominee. I am glad you understand

when I tell them to frack off.

By the way do you support Clinton and the Republicons stand on fracking? Oil profits over people's drinking water?

[MADem]

3. This is a private website, with a TOS.

Vote for whosoever you please, but if you're here to disrupt DU, the admins can toss you out on your ass.

It used to be that people who signed up here read "the rules." They don't do that anymore.

Vote for Democrats.
Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

[artislife]

5. What some consider bashing other's consider questioning

It works both ways.

Only the *O'Malley are immune.

* The ones that actually post OPs and discuss specific issues they like and back up about their candidate.

[restorefreedom]

7. excuse me, but i was very clear

i am talking about the act of voting. i was very careful to point out that du has a right to ask its partipants not to advocate for repubs or third party candidates.

but there are some here who think they have the right to demand how others should vote. this was just a friendly reminder to all that this is (at least for now) a democracy, and we are free to vote as we see fit without scare tactics, demands, or loyalty pledges.

if you want to talk about disruption, perhaps you should address your comments to those who keep going on the boards demanding that we all vote for a certain candidate. It would seem to me that those individuals are trying to disrupt democracy which is way more important than disrupting what happens on a discussion board.

[A Simple Game]

9. There are many on DU that support your points about democracy.

Is an anonymous person on a web site telling you how to vote any different than a anonymous billionaire telling you how to vote through funding a super pac?

Don't disrupt but vote the way you want, otherwise why live in a democracy if you can't use it?

[restorefreedom]

16. exactly

the superpacs also want to direct our vote. superpacs trying to influence our vote by doing negative and false advertising is bad enough. But people directing other people "you must vote this way", there's just something so unseemly about that in a democracy.

[RufusTFirefly]

13. You're right. You were clear.

But you are apparently supposed to feel timid and self-conscious about your perfectly legitimate post.

I think the response has eerie echoes of Ari Flyshit's notorious advice, "Better watch what you do, watch what you say."

I find it both sad and creepy how quickly authoritarians jump in to keep us in line.

P.S. Thanks for posting.

[restorefreedom]

18. thanks....and the speed with which this was jumped on

with a not so veiled threat of getting kicked off the site kind of makes the exact point i was trying to make.

so an attempt to further intimidate actually bolstered the argument....cool.

[MADem]

31. Aren't you so polite to me, but boy can you get rude and snarky downthread? Hmmm.

Sorry I'm not constantly checking DU anymore--it's just not a very welcoming place to people who don't support a particular candidate.

Speaking of welcoming, I never welcomed you to DU--welcome. You've only started posting again recently, I see.

The act of voting is, of course, private--but if you are bashing, trashing and depressing participation on this DEMOCRATIC website, there are consequences with regard to your membership here that are outlined quite clearly in the TOS. Or, there used to be. Given that a LOT of people here don't seem to give a shit about the TOS, anymore, or have even read it, I contributed that paragraph for edification. So shoot me.

This used to be a website where Democratic candidates were championed, differences were handled in a reasonably civil, if spirited, manner, and everyone felt that when the shit hit the fan we were all on the same side. It's not like that anymore.

If people don't want to run afoul of the TOS, the smart thing to do is just not participate in any loyalty polls, instead of whining about them and calling attention to one's private intentions. How difficult is that?

Everyone knows what the slant is, here--so why 'push' the admins? To see how much they'll take, or how little they care anymore?

It doesn't really matter, anyway. There's not much here, save in the protected groups. Too much snark and rudeness. Take away the names and the candidates, and it reads like Free Republic.

[PowerToThePeople]

42. It reads like free republic

Because we have too many conservative, corporatist, third way, authoritarian people posting here. Hmm. I wonder which candidate they support?

[MADem]

45. That's exactly the sort of nasty comment (about people who support a Democrat that you, apparently,

do not favor) that I was talking about.

Thanks for jumping in to illustrate the point I was making so promptly!!!

PowerToThePeople
42. It reads like free republic
View profile
Because we have too many conservative, corporatist, third way, authoritarian people posting here. Hmm. I wonder which candidate they support?

[rhett o rick]

63. You do not understand that some are sick of the status quo that has put

us where we are today. Some of us will no longer sit back and let the 1% loot everything we've worked so hard for. They have taken our jobs, our retirements, they destroyed our environment and neglected our infrastructure. They have sent our children to war to die and get wounded FOR THEIR PROFITS. And when the vets get back they get nothing. I volunteer at a foodbank and see the people that are couch serfing on family and friends couches, living in their cars, sending their children to school without breakfast, dying because they can't afford even Obamacare. Studies have shown that we no longer live in a democracy but a oligarchy.

I personally feel it's immoral to support the status quo. I will support Democrats but never those supported by the oligarchy.

Pretending their isn't a huge problem isn't the answer, it's denial.

[senz]

64. Agree with everything you say, rhett

but I'll be surprised if it changes her mind.

[rhett o rick]

67. It won't change her mind because there are some things more important than

children living in poverty. More important than our seniors struggling for winter heat. More important than our vets begging on the streets. More important than saving our infrastructure and our Social Security. More important than fixing our private prison system. But she will have to explain what that is. I think I know but best if she would explain.

[MADem]

73. Well, then Elizabeth Warren is your enemy, too, if that's your "manifesto."

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/elizabeth-warren-defense-massachusetts-115157

Of course, some who cozy up to the defense industry get a pass, I guess:


http://www.newsweek.com/2015/10/02/bernie-sanders-campaigns-2016-presidential-campaign-democratic-party-374897.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/lockheed-martin-in-vermont-senator-bernie-sanders-corporate-conundrum/5452106

All this seems pretty "status quo" to me. It's wrapped up in prettier paper, is all.

[rhett o rick]

76. Nice try for the distraction. Do you support the 99% or Clinton and the 1%?? nm

[MADem]

77. I support "Clinton and the 99 percent." And that wasn't a "distraction"--that was RIGHT on point.

Unless the MIC is "OK" for some POTUS candidates, but not others.

[rhett o rick]

92. You have to chose one or the other, the 99% or Clinton. Clinton may support some

social justice issues, but she favors Wall Street and big corporations like Chevron, Walmart, Mansanto, etc. She supports the TPP which will send more jobs overseas to benefit the 1% and not the 99%. Same with fracking, she and the REpublicans support fracking and oil company profits over the 99%'s water supplies.

[restorefreedom]

43. thanks for the welcome

and i do mean that. i used to post more during the dark days of the Cheney administration, and then I stopped for quite a long while. I got more interested again when Bernie announced that he was running.

I try to save my snarkiness for when I feel it's warranted. I really do try and stick to the issues, and I saw loyalty oath's or promises to vote for the Democratic nominee whoever they might be oaths as being an issue. I'm not interested in pushing the buttons of the administrators or in pissing people off just for the fun of it. But there are many people here who are very committed to significant change in our political system. They see Bernie as the representative of what that change could look like. And as you know by now, many see Hillary as part of yesterday, as part of how politics used to be done. And many including myself will never get past her vote on the Iraq war, among other things.

in addition to that, some people live in states where their general election vote is not going to change the outcome of their state. For me, I've always lived in the states solidly blue or solidly red. The vote that counts for me is the primary. I could sit home on general election day and it would not make a damn bit of good except for downtickets.

many of us have reasons including strategic ones, reasons of conscience, or just dislike of a particular candidate's policies as to why we may or may not vote for an individual in the general election. It would be nice if these people were understood or at least accepted and not disparaged because they're not going to necessarily vote for everybody with a D after their name. some here feel that we owe every dem our vote no matter what. i disagree. it doesn't mean I'm going to come on here after the primaries and start trashing whoever the Democratic nominee is if it's not Bernie.

and frankly, the people pushing the idea of a loyalty oath make me think that they are nervous about their candidates ability to win a general election. I don't see any Bernie supporters pushing a loyalty oath. I don't see O'Malley supporters pushing a loyalty oath. I see Hillary supporters pushing loyalty oaths. Perhaps they are concerned that Hillary's policies and demeanor have alienated many progressives who might not be inclined to vote for her in the general election. Maybe that's the issue… Her policies and her demeanor throughout the campaign and how she treats the progressives. if she handled things differently and didn't just assume the nomination was hers to lose, maybe she even would win over a few votes.

[MADem]

48. I think people pushing these loyalty oaths are doing a couple of things--and it depends on the

person pushing 'em.

--Some are trying to sort out who are genuine Democrats, and who are disruptors. And there are plenty of the latter here, lately. Some of 'em sound disturbingly familiar, too. The people who say Well FUCK (insert name)--they're a (insert bullshit, tiresome, cartoonish caricatures of the candidates' POVs--from "socialist" to "corporatist" and everything in-between), well, they're disruptors. They are all about FIGHTING ON THE INTERNET.

--Some are mindless cheerleaders convinced of the rightness of their favorite. They actuallly think being confrontational about how a person votes will somehow force them to change their minds. They probably bullied their children, too, and will be left alone, wondering why Sonny doesn't come to visit, in their old age.

--Some are flat out trolls and disruptors. They know that a "loyalty oath" post with the right buzzwords will get people's bowels in an uproar, and they slap one of those up and stand back, rubbing their hands (or something else) with glee.

--Some aren't trolls, but they're just master baiters. Or junior baiters, trying to join the master class. They like to chain jerk, be snarky, be rude, be mean, play the BOOYAH card, talk about other posters IN the thread like Mean Girls making fun of the nerd in the corner, and in general, act in a childish and broad brushed manner.

Here's what I think about Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. They have very different careers. They've lived very different lives. They have very different experiences. And of course, they are not the same gender. The thing that many people here refuse--and I mean flat-out REFUSE--to acknowledge, is, that Bernie Sanders LIKES Hillary Clinton. He has said so--MANY TIMES. He respects her. She LIKES him, too, and she respects him. Hell, she donated to the campaign that PUT HIM IN THE SENATE, so that's a bit of a clue. She also helped him in his early days in the upper chamber.

Some folks don't realize that politicians don't go at it 'hammer and tongs' the way people do on the internet. I think a lot of this internet fighting is more about personal loneliness/saying outrageous stuff to get a reaction than trying to educate fellow Democrats on the specifics of a candidate's positions. Looook at meeeee! I don't get any respect or notice in real life, but boy-oh-boy, I say snarky stuff and I have a "following" on DU!! Look at all the "recs" my snarky post got!! I'm ....IMPORTANT!!!!" It's kind of sad that this kind of stuff would mean so much to some.

I miss the less nasty DU. That sense of loss, and five bucks, will buy me a shitty cup of coffee at Starbucks, though! On the bright side, the less time I spend here, the more I get done IRL!

[restorefreedom]

56. there is passion on all sides for sure

certainly there are disruptors on all sides, and just as there were jerks in high school, they grow up and continue their behavior elsewhere. but a lot of what i see here is a combination of frustration and zeal.

i might like hillary if i met her. I don't know. but i strenuously dislike many of her policy positions as well as her and most other politicians cozy relationship to wall street.

i do think that the infighting illustrates a reason why more and earlier debates could be very helpful. we could be talking about what they said and looking at their differences on policy, contrasting it with the gop, and watching the people start to really select their candidate. all this waiting is helping to frustrate many of us imo, and it doesn't help having to watch the gop freakshow get all the attention

[MADem]

79. Primary debate sound bites are often used in OPPO ads with dire music and dark shading.

We know where our few candidates stand on the issues. With two clicks we can get a full outline. Here's the truth about debates--lesser known candidates want them to gain name recognition and get their face out there. Better known candidates don't want them because all they are is an opportunity for "gotcha" that the opposition will use if they get a chance.

The reality of debates, though, is that the more experienced candidate at them often does way better, because they've got the formats down and are at ease in the situation. Candidates with short tempers, who only want to talk about what THEY want to talk about, don't do well. Many questions are NOT issue oriented, they're designed to find out if voters would like to have a beer with the candidate--they are personality tests, in essence.

I think it's good that the GOP gets a chance to tear themselves to shreds unmolested or uninterrupted. Let them get up there and say stupid things--it'll be useful in the general election. Remember, at the end of the day, there will be only one of them at the top of the ticket.

[restorefreedom]

81. i disagree on tactics

many say as you have that this gives the gop a chance to show their flaming stupidity. unfortunately it also gives people a chance to get behind a "populist" like trump. there are people who might be open to voting dem who might start to support a repub now. there are votes for a ge that we could lose that we will not get back.

candidates who have a good message should be wanting to shout that message from the rooftops. and as to the lesser known/better known candidate difference, also a reason imo why there should be debates. candidates with greater name rec and often more $ should not have an institutional advantge in a democratic election. it is exactly the kind of election buying that bernie talks about.

dems have a good message. it doesn't need to be protected from the people imo

[MADem]

82. Trump says a stupid thing or two at every debate. It gets talked about, he gets attention, and

then, people forget.

Now picture all those gaffes strung together in a single commercial, playing in heavy rotation, over and over again. In NO time Trump goes from "speaking truth to power" to "idiotic racist, sexist, bully-asshole," and it's all done WITH HIS OWN WORDS.

How do you think LBJ took down Goldwater? With his OWN words. Nowadays, people want more than just words--they want visuals. And the debates provide that, with good lighting, clean camera angles, and crisp audio.

We don't have to "worry" about our "message." What we do have to worry about are unfortunate turns of phrase that can be used against us--by Republicans. Further, things that are common are devalued--things that are less common are more highly regarded. If you had a debate a week, what would they end up sparring about? Minutiae? Gotcha questions? Beer or wine? Boxers or briefs? What is the capital of Liberia? Can you tell the audience who Thomas Beni Yoni is? Be careful what you wish for, if they take that route (and I wouldn't be surprised if they do that).

It's not like their positions are not known--in fact, they've got similar views on a LOT of things.

More to the point, the further away from the voting booth a debate happens, the less the messages sink in. I don't think anyone can remember much about the recent GOP debates in terms of their policy views--the things that stand out are the Gotcha moments.

[restorefreedom]

86. i get what you are saying

but i prefer a more open and lengthy discussion, both among the d candidates and to contrast with the gop.

i would like to see all five of them debating so much that it pounds the living shit out of the gop 1% message, and by the time election comes, people will be lining up not only to vote president, but to toss out their useless reps and senators.

agree to disagree on that one.

btw, there is a thread somewhere that trump has mentioned that if this doesn't work out he will go back to his business. so there could be a more establishment r after all, or a carson or fiorina to contend with. and as much as they are wackos, they are a lot smarter than trump imo

[MADem]

87. I'd rather not see any of them overexposed.

There is an arc to these things. Britney Spears can tell you all about it. She started out as the "IT" girl who could command any price, but she was dogged and pursued and her every mistake was blown up to be more than it was, and she ended up having a breakdown. South Park even did a parody about it.

That's a rather dire example, but in terms of politics, even politicians can be over-exposed. GWBush's popularity didn't just go in the toilet because of his POLICIES, it was because all of the networks and the cable newsers would cut away from Days of Our Lives or Oprah or some cooking/wedding/Real Housewives show to show his dumb ass waddling off a plane and grunting in front of a pre-vetted crowd of cheering, drooling assholes. He never said much of anything, but they covered it ANYWAY. After a while, enough was enough. People just didn't want to SEE him. They didn't want Tom Ridge or some other asshole telling us we were in Threatcon ORANGE. They were tired of it all.

Exposure is a tricky thing--there's just enough, and there's too much. And there's also timing.

Right now, it's the Republicans' time to rip each other to shreds. We don't need to take the news media''s attention away from that all-important effort. They should be focused like one of those LASER BEAMS on which Republican is childishly insulting the other--and they should report it all, relentlessly. The more sound bites--that WE can use, later--the better.

The Republican Party has the equivalent of super-delegates, too. They will control who gets out of the gate. It's not gonna be Trump. It's not gonna be Carson. It's not gonna be Fiorina--they're all too stupid and the Klown Kar party hierarchy doesn't like them. Judging by the way his peers told Ted "Grampa Munster" Cruz to STFU the other day, I'd say it ain't gonna be him, either. Rubio, Jeb (even though he's tanking now--he has MONEY to ride it out), even Fuckerbee have a better shot than those three.

[restorefreedom]

88. poor britney

she did bring a lot on herelf but she was very young, too. i have a titch of sympathy for her.

i just hope we don't lose ge voters who will glob on to the gop flavor of the month. what is a clown car to us is "common sense 'merican politics" to some

so you really don't think it will be one of the top three... tRump, fiorina, carson, interesting. from what i have read on that "other website", they HATE jeb! hate hate hate....hard to imagine, even with money, he can get the support of the base..they loathe him.

i think if trump and company fade out, it will be rubio the wonder boy.

huckerbee......(large shudder)

[MADem]

91. People who talk on the internet don't always get their way.

They hated Mittsy the Shitsy too, but he was their standard bearer. They went apoplectic, but they couldn't change hearts and minds.

The only poll that counts is the one that happens on election day. And people who don't think that media buys can move mountains haven't seen them work.

Seriously, no one in NH knew who John Kasich was six months ago--but that little shit has been buying up airtime left, right and center, in very strategic markets (out of the Boston stations) targeting the densly populated southern sector of the state, and ...VOILA! He went from "Who the FUCK is John Kasich?" to SECOND in the polls there. He's dropped back a bit--and guess what? His drop in the polls coincided with a cut-back in the number of times I've spotted that weird Kasich ad narrated by a twenty-something female with a babyish voice. He probably needs MONEY. If he can get himself a sugar daddy, HE could actually bring this thing all the way home--or, at the very least, he could make a very credible play for the VP slot.

Money. Money changes everything. Without it, you do not win, regardless of "people power" and "revolution" and all those other exhortative phrases. And there's no sense in griping and saying "It shouldn't be that way," and "It's not fair" because, notwithstanding that those thoughts are both correct and true, the reality is that this go-round, it is STILL about MONEY and without it, you're toast.

Enough ad work convinced morons that stinking rich Mitt Romney was a regular guy who rolled up his sleeves, who was pro-choice, and a "Christian just like me" because he filmed a commercial in kodachrome colors in front of a frigging white clapboard Cape Cod church. People BOUGHT his bullshit, because he repeated it four times an hour in the run-up to the election. His ad buys could not be avoided.

And if you think I'm joking, I'm not--he crushed his opponent, not with ideas (hers were better), but with flat-out lies, pandering, sparkly bright pictures and bullshit:

Now THERE's a fucking asshole for ya-- "I want people to say 'I wish **I** lived in Massachusetts!" The bastard got caught taking a HOMESTEAD exemption on his Utah home on his taxes--he had to sheepishly repay that and insist he was "really" a Massachusettsian. As soon as he decently could, he sold that Belmont property that was in his wife's name, leaving behind a massive, windowless Mormon cathedral in the town -- a bloody incongruent eyesore that looks like a prison, that he bullied through the town's planning commission, and skeedaddled to the beaches of La Jolla.

I don't know who will end up getting the GOP nod, but Trump is a blowhard, Fiorina an idiot, Carson is clueless and sounds like he's high half the time, Jindal is a twitch, Cruz and "Rand" are hated by the party establishment, Christie has a weight problem and is not liked for his bullying ways, so the RNC won't want him, Santorum and Fuckerbee take the Jesus stuff too far, Graham doesn't have a bride (and the GOP LIKE a bride, make no mistake), and Pataki is invisible with no money and less personality. Who's left? The Floriduh brigade of Jeb and Marco. And who, of that lot, has the most money? That exclamation point after Jeb! might as well be a dollar sign....

[Oilwellian]

49. You're lecturing someone on rudeness?

[beam me up scottie]

66. No kidding!

[MADem]

78. Laugh away. I don't resort to personal insults or characterizations.

You, or your cheering friend, below, cannot say the same.

This is a discussion board--I discuss.

[daleanime]

17. I don't see anywhere where it says....

vote for every Democrat.

Will it be OK if I vote for 80% of the Democrats that I can, or do I need to reach 90%?

Or do you just need to find a different club with which to beat people with?

Have a lovely day!

[restorefreedom]

19. pretty sad, hey?

it only prohibits campaigning against dems on this site but of course our votes are own. so they have tried every other tactic, and this is all they have left. Trying to browbeat people or tricking them into voting for a particular candidate. If that doesn't illustrate the pathetic state of this democracy, I don't really know what does.

[MADem]

32. It's in the last sentence.

If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

If you're supporting eighty percent of the candidates on "our" ballot, and making noise about how much the other twenty percent suck in posts here, you're bashing/trashing/undermining.

17. I don't see anywhere where it says....
View profile
vote for every Democrat.

Will it be OK if I vote for 80% of the Democrats that I can, or do I need to reach 90%?

Or do you just need to find a different club with which to beat people with?

Have a lovely day!

I'm not "beating" anyone. If anything, I am "bemoaning" the lost DU community.

You have one of those lovely days, too.

[daleanime]

35. So then in your professional opinion....

if I maintain a 90% I'm safe?

And thank you, any day my feet meet the floor is a good one.

[MADem]

37. No, just don't trash Democrats on a general election ballot, and you'll be "safe."

Nothing wrong with spirited discussion in the primaries, but I suspect some people mistake "spirited" with "permission to be a rude and insulting ass." It's why this place has slowed down at a time when it should be speeding up.

[randys1]

51. To be fair to the many here who do nothing BUT bash that 20%, it is clear they

are doing this, they do it all day everyday and yet they are still here.

So it would appear the rules either have changed or are no longer enforced.

[sabrina 1]

25. What has that got to do with the OP? And are you and those who are running around

demanding loyalty oaths of the opinion the majority of DUers are not capable of reading and understanding for themselves?

Is there some reason why a voter should feel that being threatened throughout the primary season with being thrown off an internet forum, would matter one bit regarding how they vote?

Explain the purpose of doing what you just did. I read the instructions and don't need anyone else to take me by the hand like a child to do so.

So what is the purpose of this behavior? Is to get votes for a particular candidate? Is to threaten voters? What IS the reason for this odd behavior?

It certainly won't get anyone any votes. And since we're all adults, I assume no one needs to be spoonfed like this. So explain it if you can.

[restorefreedom]

29. i wouldn't wait for an answer, sabrina

its not coming.

this is the tactic, and there is no justifiable explanation.

sad.

[MADem]

30. Cut the crap, Sabrina. You "run around" stirring the pot at every opportunity.

I am barely here anymore, the environment is toxic in the extreme.

It's a weird day at DU when excerpting the TOS gets you on your high horse.

Enjoy the view.

[reddread]

47. can we find you over yonder?

in case youre missed?

[Oilwellian]

50. ROFL n/t

[MADem]

72. Way to elevate the discourse. And your chuckling pal, too. nt

[rhett o rick]

70. Funny that. Toxic. I want to end the status quo that finds 22% of American

children living in poverty. Why is that toxic? Maybe to those that think that corp profits are more important than people.

[MADem]

71. And you're doing it by "holding forth" on DU?

[liberal_at_heart]

8. K&R

[840high]

10. Big K/R

[SoapBox]

11. K & R

[jalan48]

12. I think the "Republicans are worse" argument has reached its pull date.

Progressives make up a significant portion of the Democratic base. We're not a new fad like the Tea Party, we've been around for a long time. If Hillary wins the nomination she needs to tell us what she will fight for on our behalf. That's how politics works. To simply say, if Bernie loses then I will vote for Hillary makes all of this a meaningless conversation.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Some here seem to think that's an archaic notion and that your vote belongs to a party.

[Omaha Steve]

15. Marta and I vote for a candidate or issue we choose on our own

Rarely do we disagree.

We do use the union endorsed list on small races we don't know about. She was CWA, I was AFSCME. I'm still a delegate on the Omaha Labor Fed (AFL-CIO).

[rladdi]

20. In a democracy, we the people run and control the government, not those politicians we elect.

They are suppose to representative us in every bill they read, hear and pass. They DO NOT represent the lobbyist and big corporations. The voters and American people need to make politicians understand who the real boss is in government. Defeat those that have try to destroy our freedom, our democracy. Show those politicians who the real boss is. It is not the billionaire contributors, its the people who elect them. Stand up voters to the politicians.

[sibelian]

21. Thank you.

[MissDeeds]

22. Excellent post

I could not agree more.

K&R

[Le Taz Hot]

23. The act of "voting" can never be deemed as "throwing away your vote."

[hfojvt]

24. not mine

I owe my vote to the company store.

"nobody can tell us who to vote for"

Huh? We have free speech. In fact, ANYBODY can tell you who to vote for.

"And anyone who tries to bully, demand, or frighten someone into voting for a particular candidate in a particular race does not fully understand democracy."

Again, huh?

Bullying and demanding would in the first case seem to be illegal and in the second case a really bad tactic. But frightening? That's kinda basic persuasion.

In October 2000 I wrote a letter to the editor of the Mason City Globe Gazette to try to persuade people to vote for Gore. First, I started with 100 billion reasons that they should (that was not my exact number, sadly I do not have a copy of this letter, I used an actual number) vote AGAINST Bush. Because his absurd tax cut proposed to give $100 billion to the richest 20% and I thought rather than giving money to rich people we should use that money for OUR retirement.

Finally I concluded with something like "We have lived through 8 years of Clinton, and it has been pretty good. I can handle four more years" and then THIS exact quote "Quite frankly, a Bush presidency scares me."

For shame, eh. I tried to frighten people into voting for Gore, and against Bush.

Never mind that it turns out I was RIGHT to be frightened, that the Bush Presidency was a fugging disaster. I should be ashamed for trying to warn people from making a huge mistake.

No I stand by that, and we can be very clear about something else. In any state where the contest is close, a vote for somebody other than the Democratic candidate simply HELPS THE REPUBLICAN WIN.

That's pretty basic math. If R > D then R wins. It does not matter if D+I > R. Ultimately, if it is important for you that R loses AND IT SHOULD BE then you have to vote for the D.

Yes, absolutely it is your choice. You do have the freedom to choose wrong, to help the Republican to win.

I have to wonder though, why would you want to? If Gore is too conservative for you, why would you prefer Bush for President? That simply makes ZERO fucking sense. NONE.

[sabrina 1]

27. Did you threaten people that 'if you don't vote you can't join the country club'? I believe that's

what the OP is talking about.

What you did was to advocate for a candidate. Ordering people to vote 'or else' is an entirely different thing.

I don't like 'or elses' and tend to go in the opposite direction when given ultimatums from bullies.

[hfojvt]

41. I used fear, that's my point

I said "I am afraid of what happens if Bush wins"

The OP seemed to be more about voting than it was about DU.

I can certainly sympathize with Clinton supporters on DU. First, if they were here in 2008 and were Clinton supporters then, they must have been really upset about the primary loss then. I mean, she was the clear favorite, and I really thought it would be over - in her favor - after super duper Tuesday.

Now again, they are seemingly out numbered here by their enemies. Pounded by criticism of Clinton and hopeful predictions of her defeat. Day after day after day. DU must be a hostile work environment for them. They are probably gonna react badly to people who say, or seem to say "I won't vote for Clinton if she wins the primary."

If they are making the statement that "you won't be able to say such things about her after she wins the primary". They are probably correct on that. If they make the "threat" "vote for Clinton or the Republican is gonna win". Well, to a certain degree they are correct on that as well, although some of that depends on the state. I could write letters to the editor all over the state of Kansas and Clinton would still lose by over 100,000 votes. No amount of crystal blue persuasion is gonna get her these six electoral votes. That is probably just as true in a lot of other states - Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Utah, Idaho, and so on.

For some reason the OP seemed to disagree with the basic sentiment that really should be universal here - the Republican candidate needs to lose next November.

[restorefreedom]

28. kinda making my point

"If R > D then R wins. It does not matter if D+I > R. Ultimately, if it is important for you that R loses AND IT SHOULD BE then you have to vote for the D."

so now it has gone beyond telling us how to vote, now we're being told how to think? It should be important that R loses? while the vast majority of people on this website probably do not want to see republican win, my guess is that nearly 100% of them do not like being told how to think or being told what should be important to them.

"Yes, absolutely it is your choice. You do have the freedom to choose wrong, to help the Republican to win."

there you go again, telling people how to think. Who gets to decide what is "wrong"? Who gets to decide what is a proper use of a vote? Who is anybody to tell somebody else what is or should be on our conscience, or how to use their vote in an election?

I know you probably didn't mean to, but your comments actually bolster my argument, as I see it. People on this website are trying to bully other people into voting for Hillary in the general election if she would win the nomination, which she will not, or else they will either be thrown off of Du, it'll be their fault if Supreme Court justices are conservative, and it will be their fault if this country goes down the tubes.

wrong on all counts, the terms of service say that we cannot advocate for non-dems on this site, it says nothing about our voting. And as far as how the country goes or who gets nominated for the Supreme Court, it's the job of the candidates to win the people's votes who they wish to vote for them, and it's the job of the party to allow for a free and unrigged democratic process to determine each nominee. If those individuals fail in their task, it's not the voters fault what happened to the country. But nice try.

[hfojvt]

39. ah okay

IF I tell you what I think, that means I am telling you what to think or how to think.

"Who gets to decide what is 'wrong'?"

Well, everybody makes their own decision, all I am doing is telling you what I think. I think it is bad when the Republican wins.

Give me some time, I can explain WHY I think that, but if I make such an explanation that does NOT mean I am telling ANYBODY what to think or how to think.

Now I may use some basic facts, like the simple fact that if R > D then R wins, but should I apologize for thinking that all people should accept facts rather than reject them or just make up their own?

Yes, if the voters vote for the R or fail to vote for the D. Well, it is pretty clearly their fault that the R won. They have to accept their own responsibility in that task. It is simply logically inescapable.

I certainly accepted my OWN responsibility. In 1992, I did NOT have votes with that man, Mr. William Jefferson Clinton.

I accept my own responsibility in that. By NOT voting for Clinton, I was, in theory, helping Bush Sr. to win. I knew that going in. I did not deceive myself. I did not make excuses or say "wah, wah, wah, it's Clinton's fault for not earning my vote." Yes, sure, candidates have some responsibility, but I would say that every voter also has a responsibility to make an informed choice.

I really do not understand the denial. Are people just too young to remember 2000?

I mean, I know people had this cockamamie theory that the election of George W. Bush was actually gonna HELP liberals, by energizing the left.

It's sorta fine to have such a theory in November 2000, but it makes no sense to me how somebody can believe that NOW, after we have SEEN how wrong that theory was. At list point nobody on the left should be claiming "it doesn't matter if a Republican is elected President".

[restorefreedom]

40. it definitely matters who is in the wh

I am not sure that it always matters which party it is. as an example, war is a very important election issue for me. There can be very hawkish Democrats and less hawkish Republicans. based on what I've seen, I don't see a lot of daylight between Hillary's position on war and the position of most of the Republicans. So on that issue, whether she's in the White House or Republican is in the White House makes little difference to me. We can go issue by issue, and there were some issues where she's very different than the Republicans. But on a lot of the financial matters, which is another important issue to me, again I don't see a lot of difference. Doesn't mean I'm going to vote for Republican. but I see this election as a difference in ideology and philosophy more than I see it as a difference between parties. Sometimes they overlap, but sometimes they don't.

[Maedhros]

26. Also: it is up to the CANDIDATE to EARN your vote.

Nobody is entitled to it.

[AtomicKitten]

33. Thank you.

k&r

[DanTex]

34. What I find repugnant is people calling themselves progressives while threatening to sit out

an important election if the primary doesn't go the way they want it to.

Of course, people have the right to vote for whoever they want, even if it's Donald Trump. And I have the right to call people idiots if they vote for Donald Trump or otherwise aid and abet the GOP.

[randys1]

52. I find that very repugnant as well.

[Metric System]

44. If you want to keep posting on DU you better not campaign for anyone other than the Democratic

nominee, whether it be Hillary, Bernie, Biden, O'Malley or Santa Claus. That's the rule for this site, which has no bearing on who you actually vote for in the privacy of your booth on election day.

[Puglover]

46. Succinct and to the point.

You explained the rule perfectly.

A nice difference from the lengthy threatening tomes up thread.

[senz]

62. I KNEW Santa Claus was a Democrat. I knew it! I knew it!

Thank you for confirming what common sense would otherwise suggest.

[applegrove]

53. You should read the terms of service for the DU. We are

all supposed to support the democratic candidate in the general election.

[restorefreedom]

57. wrong. we are not to, on this site,

denigrate or campaign against a dem in the g.e.

if that is what you mean by support, fine.

if you mean by support, "vote for," i call bullshit

we don't need to pledge loyalty to anyone to participate in this site. we just need to agree not to undermine the efforts, again, while on this site, of dem candidates trying to win an election.

that is a fair and reasonable request by owners of this site.

expecting to command someone to vote for a particular candidate or party is neither fair nor reasonable.

[Android3.14]

83. What restorefreedom said

This authoritarian love fest by the bullies on this site is despicable. It's almost as if HRC supporters are counting on these intimidation techniques in the GE for the simple reason that they cannot overcome weak policy, entitled personality and corporate influence any other way.

[restorefreedom]

89. i have noticed

that the loyalty requests are coming primarily from the clinton camp. and as you point out, perhaps with better policy positions and less corporate funding, votes would come on their own.

if one has to demand a vote, i have to think that there isn't a lot there to vote for.

the best policies sell themselves and do not require or demand party loyalty

[Android3.14]

90. Exactly

If the policies and ideas have merit, then the candidate should be eager to present, defend and promote them in the public square.

I feel the same way about the GOP attempts to suppress the vote. All it means is they know how much their plans and policies suck.

[olddots]

54. in the world of "Scandal"America is a republic

half this country believs a shitty soap opera is reality and a vote is a hassle that interups glomming .

[zappaman]

55. Not if Diebold does the counting...

[restorefreedom]

58. lets hope that doesn't happen. nt

[rhett o rick]

68. Funny that you'd mention that. Diebold will most likely help the oligarchy chosen candidate.

And that sure as hell ain't Sen Sanders. Goldman-Sachs supports both Clinton and Bush or is it Bush and Clinton.

[tularetom]

59. I once told my boss to go screw himself when he tried to tell me how to vote

So I'm not going to tell some anonymous poster on an internet forum how I'm going to vote.

Hell, I don't even tell my wife, although she can probably guess.

BTW, that incident with my boss. It was 1972 and the candidate he was supporting was Richard M Nixon. A year later (after the shit had hit the fan) he was telling everybody in the office that he never voted for Nixon, that he always knew the guy was a crook.

[Catherina]

60. Yeah, that's some *democracy" the loyalty oath crowd is pushing

Per all US laws, my vote belongs to ME. What I do in the voting booth is no one's goddamn business except me and my conscience.

I find it interesting that the ones pushing loyalty oaths are from the sinking neolib contingent of the Dem party.

[99Forever]

65. Agreed.

No one, especially some frakin' internet site OR some fucking smug, self-righteous member of said site tells me who to vote for, in ANY election, ever.

And anybody who doesn't like it can go pound sand up their butt.

[Hydra]

74. People fought and died for anonymous voting

My Parent and Grandparents made it utterly clear that each vote belonged to the person, and nobody is entitled to know about it.

It's disgusting to watch the people who are destroying our party DEMAND our votes when they are adding nothing positive to the cause and are making us look like the party of "More of the Same, but smarter and sexier!"

Democracy- learn about it or get it over with and outlaw voting.

[treestar]

75. You vote behind a closed curtain

How can anyone possibly be bullied into voting for someone they don't want to? Only the weakest characters would do that.

[retrowire]

80. no bullying, demanding or fearmongering

is right.

but we should influence others and spread the word of our own causes. otherwise... how the hell else do people learn about these things? the majority does not go out and do the research for themselves, especially this early.

so without bullying, threatening or fear mongering, we should continue to share our vote with civility.

[Autumn]

84. Thank you. Great reminder.

[restorefreedom]

85. just thought some might need to hear it

most of us know, but some who could be easily intimitdated might actually think they have to vote for a certain person