For anyone who believes it isn't important to vote for the Democratic nominee in the general

[still_one]

election if they "live in a blue state", I would like to remind those folks that California, considered a blue state, elected Schwarzenegger, Wilson, Deukmejian, Seymour, and others as governors and Senators in California.

When I was at a rally for Barbara Boxer several years ago she spoke to this exact issue. She said California is painted as a liberal and Democratic state, but the reality is that Californians are fiercely independent, and to assume otherwise is the way we lose elections.

In Massachucetts another state considered blue they elected Romney, Brown among other other republicans in major elections. In Pennsylvania, another state considered blue, they elected Toomey, Santorum, Corbett, Schweiker, Ridge, and a whole cast of other republicans at various times including the present.

I can go on with all kinds of states that were considered blue, and ended up electing a republican representative or Senator.

It works the other way also. Contrary to what some may profess, Indiana has been considered a red state for some time, and guess what? Obama took that state in 2008.

It might be instructive for some to take a look at a map of states Obama won in 2008, instead of some making the assumption that "if I live in a "solidly blue or solidly red state", it really doesn't matter who I vote for.

[brush]

1. Good stuff, and those who say they will stay home instead of vote for Hillary . . .

consider that by staying home you also don't vote for your Dem senator and/or congressperson if they are up for election so we end up with repugs running the House and Senate even if a Democrat is elected to the White House.

And there are also gubernatorial and state and local dems running who won't get your vote.

[still_one]

3. and offices like the Secretary of State, who insure elections are run fairly

[brush]

6. Yes!

[djean111]

4. Oh, I don't think many people will just stay home.

The down-ticket here in Florida is very important to me. I hope to be voting for Alan Grayson, at the very least! And for local issues, candidates, and initiatives. Always with a clear understanding of Democratic values. Or what used to be Democratic values, I guess.

Also - when "Democrats" side with the GOP and vote with them against Obama - just who is running the White House, now?

[GoneFishin]

10. Totally agree. Sad thing is there was a time when I could have held my nose. But after the dirty

smears, non-answer answers on policy, debate shanahanigans, and the arrogant presumption of her inevitability, I just can't.

[djean111]

2. There has been a spate of these OPs lately. Telling us we better vote for the nominee. Under the

assumption that the nominee will be Hillary.

A little early for that, wouldn't you say? For me, voting for Hillary means more war, more cluster bombs, more fracking, and endorsing the TPP and other corporate "trade" agreements. Asking me to say I would vote for her anyway is, really, looking for pledges in advance, and me saying that I don't really care about those issues.

Why are some people so worried about this over a year in advance? Let's see how the primaries shake out, why don't we?
Not one damned politician can count on my vote ahead of time, especially when I dislike what they stand for. Best, IMO, to just stop demanding Pledge-y Things, and see what happens.

I think someone, somewhere, is counting the "oh, okay, I will hold my nose and contain my nausea and vote for Hillary if she is the nominee" votes, as actual support. I wouldn't complacently do that. Right now, it is just annoying, later on, it might bite some campaign in the ass.

[still_one]

7. There has been a spate of OPs lately professing they will not vote for the Democratic nominee if it

isn't to their likely, with a good percentage arguing it wouldn't matter since they live in a traditionally blue or red state.

The posts I am referring to are unsolicited posts where some folks feel the need to express that they will NOT vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election if it isn't their candidate. Why these folks suddenly feel a need for true confessions is a "little early for that, wouldn't you say"?

As far as your comment that making statements as in the OP "might bite some campaign in the ass", I would argue making the "pledges" not to vote for the Democratic nominee if it isn't to their likely would also "bite some campaign in the ass". It is interesting about double edged swords.

My point was simply to those that use the argument that if I live in a blue or red state it doesn't matter, is not valid reason. There are valid arguments that can be made, but that isn't one of them

[djean111]

11. I think we are seeing those OPs because, starting last January or February, we were inundated with

"but you will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee, right? right?" in what seemed like every thread. Multiple times. Cut and pasted. Along with the waaaay premature polling results and that little chart that "proved" Hillary is progressive. Many many threads were jacked with that stuff. And now there is blow-back, now there is push-back. Because asking or demanding that this early, really means that the campaign is moot, that issues don't matter. or that there is some uncertainty that trying to tie up the nomination before debates may not have been the best idea.

No matter who is the nominee< I will be voting for the always important down-ticket stuff. I hope to be voting for Alan Grayson, I hope to be voting for marijuana legalization, I know there will be other initiatives that I want to vote for or against.

Issues matter. More than ever, really, since we can all look up candidate records and deeds ourselves, not just uncritically accept expensive TV commercials and the slant of the news media. For instance, I don't think anyone really cares, any more, who their local newspaper endorses. People have, by and large, stopped reading them. In fact, I doubt whether a lot of people care about endorsements at all, or as much as they used to. I supported Hillary last time. Voted for her, here in Florida, was pissed off about how the Florida primary went. Was sure Obama could not be elected. This time around, I paid more attention. I am aghast at the propensity for war, the pushing of fracking all over the world, the refusal to stop with the cluster bombs (only country to refuse, I think!). As a former IT worker, I am angered at the bland and smiling assertion that we need even more H-1B visas. Traveling the world pushing the TPP - sickening. And don't say she only did what Obama told her to do. Not while touting her activities as SOS. If she only did what Obama told her to do, then she was only racking up frequent flyer miles.

And then there is the sniper fire thing. If she was merely confused, or "only human" - I don't want her answering the phone at 3 am, thanks anyway.

For better or worse, depending on point of view, we all have more access to information now. It is one thing to blindly say oh, I will vote for the "D" no matter what. Now we know just what each "D" stands for, and it is not a given that we will all just shrug, and hope our kids won't have to die in the Middle East so that someone can look "muscular".

That's where the people I know are coming from. They don't hate Hillary, they don't feel threatened by a woman (they would love to see Warren as well as sanders). They don't like the real important stands on the issues.

Also, "pledges" don't mean anything. They are not enforceable, unless someone is keeping track, and will retaliate. And I don't think that matters any more.

[BlueWaveDem]

13. So who do you think represents a site called Democratic Underground better?

Those who pledge to vote for the Dem nominee or those who say they won't?

[djean111]

14. I don't think that ANYONE who calls for "pledges" represents Democratic Underground.

Even the TOS does not ask for "pledges" - it only asks that we not undermine the candidates.

Asking for pledges, especially before a single debate has aired, and before a single vote has been cast. really undermines Democratic Underground, IMO. And, again IMO, that seems like what the Clinton campaign is all about. Trying to wrap up the nomination before debates and votes. That takes the "Democratic" out of DU.

[BlueWaveDem]

15. I didn't say Hillary, I said Dem nominee.

[djean111]

16. Oh, please. The only DEMANDS for pledges come from Hillary supporters.

Give me a break. The only time Bernie supporters say that is in reaction to the constant demand for pledges to vote for Hillary. And when the overweening attitude is that Hillary is Inevitable, Dammit!, then, really, to say you don't mean Hillary is laughable.

Even so - the TOS does not demand pledges. It only asks that we not work to elect someone other than the nominee, here at DU.

[BlueWaveDem]

19. I said Dem nominee.

But keep raging against an imaginary scenario if you want.

[djean111]

20. There goes that hyperbole thing again!

I am not raging, I am not tearing my hair out, my head is not on fire.
I am just explaining why I think that Pledge-y Thing is a bad idea.
I was answering your question, is all, and informing you of what I think of your assertion that you mean ANY Dem nominee, and not Hillary. I believe that Hillary supporters, like yourself, are so sure that Hillary has this in the bag that when you say "Dem nominee" you actually mean Hillary. No anger involved, just bemusement at the reaction to the push-back on this.

[BlueWaveDem]

21. You could have answered without insisting I meant something else.

I said Dem nominee, you insisted I didn't. Whatever.

[reformist2]

5. I agree. But it's more important to go with your conscience. And my conscience may tell me

not to vote for HRC.

[brush]

8. At least don't stay home. Vote for down-ticket dems.

[reformist2]

36. Yes. Good point. Everyone who is a concerned citizen should vote.

[still_one]

9. That is everyone's choice, and no one is required to publicize it either. My point was simply that

the argument, "since I live in a blue state, or red state", it really won't matter, is not a valid justification.

The argument of conscience is a valid justification, though I may not agree with it

[still_one]

25. That is at least a valid reason rather than the lame excuse that because I live in a red or blue

state it wouldn't matter anyway

[MiniMe]

12. And Maryland considered a blue state elected a repub governer in the last election

[still_one]

17. There are a lot of examples. The lessons of 2000 seem to be an after thought

for some

I have heard the argument that it was stolen, and while there is validity in that statement, it ignores the fact that in key states the election was far too close, and due to the electoral college it made it even more critical

[NonMetro]

28. Same In Michigan:

Obama got 57% in 2008, and 54% in 2012, but the governor is Republican, and the legislature is 70% GOP majority in the Senate, and 60% GOP majority in the house, primarily due to gerrymandering done when Republicans won control in the tea party surge in 2010. The way the state is chopped up now, the Democrats have no chance in the foreseeable future of gaining a majority in either house, nor in the US house!

[99Forever]

18. And you sir or madam...

... are out of line thinking you have ANY control or say in who I or anyone else aside from yourself votes for. I OWN my vote, no one else has ANY fucking claim to it. Not ever. Period.

[still_one]

22. since you seem to have a comprehension problem,, I never said people cannot do what they

want. I specifically addressing the argument put forth by some that they are not voting for the Democratic nominee because it wouldn't matter because they live in a blue or red state, and that was not a valid reason:

"For anyone who believes it isn't important to vote for the Democratic nominee in the general
election IF they "live in a blue state"

As far as what you do, I personally don't care, but there are far better reasons than saying I live in a blue or red state so it doesn't matter

Seems you are very touchy misrepresenting what I said

Have a nice day

[99Forever]

26. I know loyalty oath crap wihen I see it.

Just who is it you think you are kidding? Save it for the gullible, 'cuz it ain't selling here.

[still_one]

30. another assumption lacking critical thinking, and I really don't care who you want to vote for

[99Forever]

32. Another wannabe...

... trying to bait.


And another fail.

[still_one]

33. have a good day oh wise one

[99Forever]

39. I already am, oh snarky one.

Now, run along and try to bait someone else.

[still_one]

42. LOL

[PowerToThePeople]

23. An idea. Put someone in people want to vote for.

Never. Voting. For. Hillary.

[still_one]

24. The only thing I was saying is if you live in a blue or red state, that is not a

very good reason to say you won't vote for the Democratic nominee. It doesn't stand up to the facts.

However, there are plenty of other valid reasons why one may or may not want to vote for the Democratic nominee.

As far as who you will or will not vote for, excuse me sir or madam, but you must be mistaking me for someone who cares

[restorefreedom]

29. best response ever. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. I don't sign or comply with loyalty oaths.

I lived in California when all those named won. I voted for the Democrats. My vote didn't swing the elections.

[restorefreedom]

31. people should vote their conscience

whatever that tells them to do.

as to the red state/blue state issue, it is different in every state. and as i have said before, my states of residence have been red or blue, solid. my vote in the ge will not change the outcome, but if the nom is a centrist and i weite in bernie, and enough people do that, it will make a powerful statement about what direction this country needs to go in.

there are different paths to victory and different definitions as to what victory is. i will vote my conscience in primary and ge. and that is bernie all the way. unless om gets the nom then i will vote for him in ge

not hillary. no war hawks for me. just no.

[still_one]

34. and that is a valid reason, not that one lives in a blue or red state

[restorefreedom]

35. some people like to do more strategic voting

sometimes it works, sometimes it does not.

personally, i think its hard to go wrong going with one's conscience.

[Comrade Grumpy]

37. I disagree.

I vote in a state that has not supported a Democratic presidential candidate in 20 years. The best recent performance was Obama's 45% in 2008.

It is exceedingly likely to stay red next year as well.

Being in a non-competitive state like this, I am free to vote for the presidential candidate most in accord with my values. And I do.

I never vote for Republicans, and I go pretty much straight Democratic down ballot, but my presidential vote is a chance for me to express my disappointment with the two-party duopoly in Washington. And I will.

But thanks for your concern.

[still_one]

40. Indiana was a perfect example in 2008. what I am saying is that is not a good

Not a good reason not to vote for the nominee. There are plenty of valid reason not to, but living in a blue or red state is not one of them

As for who someone votes for that is up-to them,

[Comrade Grumpy]

41. If my state became competitive, I would vote for the Dem, regardless of who it is.

I vote strategically.

[yurbud]

38. we need to demand a lot more of Democrats, and challenge them in primaries if put the rich ahead of

the rest.