If Hillary gets the nomination, I wonder how many disaffected dems will

[whatchamacallit]

be able to honor their party loyalty pledge. Especially, when her campaign veers right and her supporters switch from touting her "progressivism" to touting her "pragmatism" with every about-face. To be honest, voting for her, if it comes to that, will be the most difficult vote of my life.

[Blus4u]

1. Aren't you tired of this?

eom

[whatchamacallit]

6. If by 'this' you mean

tired of the party serving up the same old business-as-usual-status-quo-establishment-shit, then yes.

[FarPoint]

83. If you want change...it begins at home.

Start at your local Democratic Headquarters and support candidates that embrace your goals. Get them elected and move on up the line.

[artislife]

132. Basically, wait your turn

But it doesn't acknowledge the big third way machine in the way.


Your candidate wants to go to the dance with us. We get to decide whether we want to or not.

[workinclasszero]

190. Well that sounds like a lot of work

It's more fun to spam clickbait Internet polls and dream about what could be if only.....

[kristopher]

236. You might want to rethink the "spam internet polls" thing

The emergence and evolution of online polling has left in its wake a sense of disdain by many informed people for polls emerging from that platform.
While that feeling is a legitimate response to the traditional internet polling conducted alongside some local news clickbait piece of sensationalistic 'journalism', there has emerged serious methods that deserve serious consideration as we move forward.
We've seen a fair amount of this polling already this primary season and we will undoubtedly be seeing a tremendous amount in the months ahead. This information is provided to help DUers place the results of that polling in its context. You might want to bookmark this for dealing with the inevitable disagreements about validity.

From Google:

Comparing Google Consumer Surveys to Existing Probability and Non-Probability Based Internet Surveys
Paul McDonald, Matt Mohebbi, Brett Slatkin Google Inc.
Abstract
This study compares the responses of a probability based Internet panel, a non-probability based Internet panel and Google Consumer Surveys against several media consumption and health benchmarks. The Consumer Surveys results were found to be more accurate than both the probability and non-probability based Internet panels in three separate measures: average absolute error (distance from the benchmark), largest absolute error, and percent of responses within 3.5 percentage points of the benchmark. These results suggest that despite differences in survey methodology, Consumer Surveys can be used in place of more traditional Internet based panels without sacrificing accuracy.
http://www.google.com/insights/consumersurveys/static/consumer_surveys_whitepaper.pdf

From Pew Research Center:

A Comparison of Results from Surveys by the Pew Research Center and Google Consumer Surveys
NOVEMBER 7, 2012
<snip>
Pew Research and Google Comparisons

From May to October, 2012, the Pew Research Center compared results for more than 40 questions asked in dual frame telephone surveys to those obtained using Google Consumer Surveys. Questions across a variety of subject areas were tested, including: demographic characteristics, technology use, political attitudes and behavior, domestic and foreign policy and civic engagement. Across these various types of questions, the median difference between 43 results obtained from Pew Research surveys and using Google Consumer Surveys was 3 percentage points. The mean difference was 6 points, which was a result of several sizeable differences that ranged from 10-21 points and served to increase the mean difference.

Differences between the Pew Research surveys and Google results occur for a number of reasons. Given that Google Consumer Surveys does not use a true probability sampling method, and its sampling frame is not of the general public, differences in the composition of the sample are potentially of greatest concern. A comparison of several demographic questions asked by Pew Research indicates that the Google Consumer Surveys sample appears to conform closely to the demographic composition of the overall internet population. Communication device ownership and internet use also aligns well for most, though not all, questions. In addition, there is little evidence so far that the Google Consumer Surveys sample is biased toward heavy internet users.

Some of the differences between results obtained from the two methodologies can be attributed to variations in how the questions were structured and administered. During the evaluation period, we typically tried to match the question wording and format. However, some exceptions had to be made since many of the questions were part of longstanding Pew Research trends and had to be modified to fit within the Google Consumer Surveys limits and the different mode of administration (online self-administered vs. interview-administered by telephone).

The context in which questions are asked could also explain some of the differences; questions in Pew Research surveys are asked as part of a larger survey in which earlier questions may influence those asked later in the survey. By contrast, only one or two questions are administered at a time to the same respondents in the Google Consumer Surveys method.

The Google Consumer Surveys method is a work in progress and the Pew Research Center’s evaluation began shortly after its inception and continued for six months. The testing is ongoing, and we will continue to evaluate their methodology.
<snip>
http://www.people-press.org/2012/11/07/a-comparison-of-results-from-surveys-by-the-pew-research-center-and-google-consumer-surveys/

List of some recent Google research on their survey methods and analysis.
http://research.google.com/pubs/MarioCallegaro.html

Original at:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251757405

[Hortensis]

221. My guess @0. "Disaffected" don't do loyalty or any other vows.

(Not that I've ever heard of such a thing or ever taken a loyalty pledge myself -- sounds more like something conservatives would be into.)

"Disaffected" people, though, either sit around and complain a lot or sit around and talk about where they went last weekend and what they're doing next weekend. In either case, there isn't one in ten who could name all 4 Democratic Party candidates.

[Gman]

2. Seems to be the topic of the day

There's a lesson to be learned in the 2000 election

[Scootaloo]

77. yeah. That lesson is that no matter what happens, Dixiecrats will blame the left.

Like how Nader getting 90,000 Florida votes total in 2000 is an indictment of the left... but Bush getting 200,000 just from Democrats is never mentioned.

If Clinton wins the GE, then "WE DON'T NEED THE LEFT!" is the order of the day for the Democratic party, and the party will lurch to the right. If Clinton loses the GE, the left will be blamed for it and the party will lurch to the right.

[whatchamacallit]

80. Ain't that the truth..

[JRLeft]

81. It's funny how there is always a reason to go rightward, isn't it?

[TDale313]

98. Sadly, you're spot on here.

[artislife]

136. If more people would have voted for Nader, he would have won? nt

[Gman]

165. No. The people that did

Have the blood of Iraq and Afghanistan on their hands

[GummyBearz]

169. Hillary voted for Nader?

I didn't know that, but always good to learn something new

[artislife]

170. No it isn't.

I voted for Gore, just so you know. But 9/11 hadn't happened and there was no ME war on the horizon. Funny, you probably don't blame h for voting for the war but blame some voters pre event..for actions caused by running a weak candidate.

[Gman]

171. Had Nader not run, 9/11 would have never happened

The IWR would never have happened.

[artislife]

173. How about all those Dems

Who voted for Bush in Florida? They didn't want the weak candidate. This is the lesson h fans should think of.

[Art_from_Ark]

187. But it wasn't even a fair vote count

If what had happened in Florida and the USSC in 2000 had happened anywhere else in the world, Americans would be quick to shout, and rightly so, "vote fraud!"

The governor was the brother of one of the candidates, and he helped to scrub voter rolls in the months before the election.

The person in charge of counting the votes was the governor's brother's campaign co-chair, who set arbitrary deadlines for counting votes, and announced a final vote tally, in favor of her candidate, before all the votes had even been counted.

The vote-counting process in Miami-Dade was disrupted by Republican operatives.

The so-called "Democrat" responsible for the confusing "butterfly ballot" in Palm Beach County had been a registered Republican just a couple of years earlier.

A judge in Tallahassee intentionally delayed the vote-counting by 3 days by requiring that truckloads of ballots be sent to Tallahassee, but then did not even bother to examine the ballots after they arrived.

The Florida State Supreme Court ordered a recount, but that was thwarted by Antonin Scalia and the US Supreme Court. Scalia, who had been appointed when the plaintiff's father had been Vice President, was also hunting buddies with the plaintiff's running mate.

Another member of the Court, Sandra Day O'Connor, expressed outright displeasure at the thought of a Gore victory.

[artislife]

188. All this, and yet the blame goes to Nader...

[stranger81]

191. So now Nader is responsible not only for the Bush

presidency, but for 9/11 and the Iraq war?!?!?

I want some of what you're smoking. It's clearly a lot stronger than what I've got.

[Gman]

197. Not just now. I've been saying this

Since 2001. Nothing new here Asti what Nader caused.

[frylock]

194. I didn't realize that Nader voted yea on IWR..

you learn so many things here on DU.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. It's becoming increasingly clear that many Sanders supporters have a problem with

the democratic process.

Whoever gets the most delegates will win.


If Sanders fails to get the most delegates, then that means he couldn't convince the voters he was the best candidate.

In that case, Sanders would have no one to blame but himself.

[bkkyosemite]

19. Delgates are the not same as voters.

[Cali_Democrat]

104. delegates are awarded based on caucus and primary vote tallies. nt

[Historic NY]

205. You need delegates to secure the nomination.........

when you vote in the primary your vote goes to the candidate and his/or her slate of delegates. Delegate are voters in the sense they vote on who or whom they are pledged to at the convention. Right now Hillary has a lock on a good percentage those all important superdelegates.


https://votesmart.org/education/presidential-primary#.VjTyvr-TOxY

[bkkyosemite]

225. I feel the whole delegate thing was intentional

to get in the way of the popular vote. Each vote counts not some third party (the delegate) my opinion.

[workinclasszero]

102. IKR?

Bernie fans should have got involved in the process at least 4 years ago. Of course Bernie himself could have joined the democratic party and gained much more influence in how it runs but...

[FarPoint]

128. Excellent point....

It's the simple fact that always seem to rise to the occasion.

[Fearless]

223. Advocating against democracy?

[IokuA]

227. I think people are just tired of voting for people they don't believe in. You know, democracy.

[randys1]

4. Really, when the alternative is ten thousand times worse? Maybe you need to look at the math

again, it should be the easiest thing you have EVER done.

Have you NOT been paying attention to the INSANITY on the right?

Fetal tissue, abortion, voting rights, climate change, attacking healthcare, and Women and Gays etc etc etc

I mean I could go on and on.

Hey, I hate Hillary's buddy buddy relationship with Wall Street, but there is NO choice here if it comes down to anybody on our side vs theirs.

[whatchamacallit]

10. I didn't say I wouldn't do it

But I reserve the right to change my mind all the way to the ballot box.

[randys1]

15. Of course you do, but I am simply amazed when I see that kind of remark.

I think Hillary is way too close to Wall Street and I am certain she will make minor changes when we need major ones in that area and that pisses me off.

BUT, or how do I put it, lets say I am at dinner at a relatives for Thanksgiving and we have this awesome turkey, wonderful mashed potatoes, thunderously good gravy (dont you just love the gravy) and awesome stuffing, but the dinner rolls and cranberry sauce are not great.

Do you throw the whole meal in the trash?

[bkkyosemite]

20. Yes when the turkey caused salmonella to spread to all other foods.

[whatchamacallit]

22. I appreciate your point, randys1

Last edited Tue Oct 20, 2015, 02:42 PM - Edit history (1)

And like your seasonal analogy, but the party has been alienating the left for decades now. After the latest DNC debacle they've lost me. Next election I'll be an independent, and will no longer factor loyalty into my voting equation.

[artislife]

199. Why is it perfectly fine for one

group to say, what is this candidate really gong to do for me? This candidate has relied on us to swallow our wants and aspirations for the good of the group. Maybe we are tired of doing that.

Swap the groups and put them in the pronoun part of the sentence. It has been a coalition, but the members are starting to wonder what they really get out of it.

[hopemountain]

144. is it a monsanto turkey turkey dinner?

Last edited Fri Oct 30, 2015, 05:06 PM - Edit history (1)

yes, i would throw the poison in the trash. even if i were starving.

[randys1]

145. So throw the victims of the GOP in the trash as well?

the HUGE difference between any dem and any con, is what I am talking about

[hopemountain]

149. thank you randys1

but, i truly don't see how the victims of the gop will be any better off with her support of wallstreet and other income inequality pushes supporting unbridled capitalism.

will she work to end the corporate tax loopholes and increase their taxes along with the 1% as well?

will she push for more funding for infrastructure and jobs instead of the war machine?

will she continue the push for privatization of medicare and medicaid & effectively fight to reign in the skyrocketing price gouging costs from insurance corporations and pharmaceutical corporations?

or will she be courageous and push for single payer? how will hillary be able to do anything with all of the battles/distractions from the gop she would have to face - perhaps even worse than president obama.

it is true, bernie's presidency will face many of the same thwarts to his efforts/agenda. but at least i believe he will still be fighting for us. i don't have the same confidence in hillary. if she wins the primary & i give her my vote, i feel i would be voting gop. this is why we must also be supporting our true congressional and senate dems.

[hopemountain]

189. the turkey is cooked and is trash.

were we not discussing food & not people?

[trumad]

18. Good post

I think the Sanders supporters have the clap loudest mentality when it comes to this shit.

[liberal_at_heart]

125. Don't you guys get it? If people are having this difficult of a time forcing themselves to vote

you have to realize that at some point they will stop voting or at the very least vote for an alternative party. There will come a time when people will not be able to force themselves to vote for the lesser of two evils anymore. If the Democratic Party doesn't want Republicans to win the they need to start voting for politicians who will actually work for the people and not corporations. Plus, why do we want to continue the status quo if this is how pathetic things are? Do we really want to force ourselves to vote? What kind of a world are we living in and leaving to our children when we have to force ourselves to vote? We need to be finding candidates we can be excited about. That would not only keep people who vote now from stop voting. It would bring back voters who have already stopped voting.

[randys1]

130. Oh I get it, they dont. If your goal is to eliminate the lying , thieving rat bastard

politicians in both parties, you dont do that by allowing the worst of the worst to take over the country.

It is just stupid.

Plain stupid.

You see I think they are ALL corrupt and to some extent, Bernie too. His corruption can be seen in some votes that we have talked about over and over, and probably he signed on to gun issues and defense contract issues so he could SURVIVE in a corrupt system so he could be ALIVE to fight another day. So I get it, but he is part of that system.

What no SANE person does is claim to be against that system and then act in a manner that further empowers the side who are actively trying to kill Women, minorities, voting rights, the environment etc.

My approach is to look at the big picture times ten thousand, I explain it like this: you work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, to get rid of ALL the politicians and the current system and you take FIVE MINUTES out on election day (8 hours if you are Black) and you vote for the LEAST harmful of the two so your job is that much easier and the damage being done is that much less.

Common sense

[liberal_at_heart]

133. If it makes sense to you go ahead. It does not make sense to me. I will not do it anymore.

[randys1]

135. What are you accomplishing? What will you say if Ted Cruz is president and he appoints someone

who outlaws abortion and Women start dying?

[liberal_at_heart]

140. Oh, so now if I don't vote for the nominee women will die. Nice blackmail, but it won't work.

I don't put up with this kind of crap. People who tell me how to vote get put on ignore.

[DJ13]

152. " If your goal is to eliminate the lying , thieving rat bastard politicians in both.."

"... parties, you dont do that by allowing the worst of the worst to take over the country."


You also dont vote for our own "lying, thieving rat bastards" just to block the other side from being elected.

That seems like a ridiculous way to try and improve the integrity of our political system.

[firebrand80]

5. about as many "PUMA" votes as Obama lost last time

i.e., not enough to keep him from being President

[CincyDem]

7. Im not sure I'm a Hillary supporter today.

Living in Ohio, we're pretty much spectators to the primary process. By the time the train gets here, most of the beg decisions are behind us.

Today, I like what Bernie has to say. And I like Hillary's leadership. So I'm conflicted...today.

On July 29, 2016 I know exactly who I'm voting vote in November. Whoever leave Philly with the nomination. I won't hold my nose. I won't whimper into the polls wishing I had another choice. I'll work to ensure I bring as many votes to the democratic candidate that I can.

For me, it isn't just how much I like the democratic candidate...it's the spread versus how much I expect to be absolutely disgusted by the republican candidate.

So while I may be "disaffected" vis-a-vis Hillary...I am completely clear on my values and, while the democratic nominee may not be 100% of what I want in a president...I'll take it 12 days out of 10 relative to anything the repubs have to offer.

[artislife]

138. Hillary and the DNC is counting on everyone falling in line

I look at the Republicans and am astounded that they are even human.

I look at Hillary and I see a female Nixon with a bunch of smug minions around her chanting she ain't so bad.

Then I look at the Bernies and the Jill Steins and I see humans who care about the issues I think are important.

I am closer and closer to voting "other" if it is a repub and h on the ballot in November 2016.

One person, one vote. It is supposed to be your voice. I plan on using mine.

[CincyDem]

153. Perfect is the enemy of good

You're right - it is supposed to be your voice and I see using my voice to make a difference, not just a statement. Voting "other" is a valuable statement in democracy and it's good that we have that option. And you're right about wishing there will be another choice, but if there's not you have to ask the question do you want to be right or do you want even a semi-dem in the WH vs. a dyed in the wool rethug.

Unfortunately, "other" doesn't usually win elections. I firmly believe that "other" has cost us some good options in the past, not the least being Gore. He wasn't perfect but, as I think we can agree, he was better than Bush. All the folks that voted for Nader because "the Dem's gave me no choice..." gave us Iraq, Roberts and Alito. The argument about having a better candidate - cop out. I think those who use that argument are basically saying "I don't really know the how my vote matters".

Just sayin'

[Thinkingabout]

8. One can choose to vote for the DNC nominee or support the Republicans by not voting. I am not sure

Everyone here are Democrats and attempts to discourage some not to vote when it is their intention to vote for Republicans since they are Republicans to begin with. Everyone should vote, this is right thing to do.

[Sivart]

61. This is the BS that needs to stop.....

Not voting for Hillary, or Bernie, or whomever..... IS NOT the same as voting for a republican. Nor is it in any way "supporting" a republican.

In order to VOTE FOR a republican, you have to VOTE FOR the republican.

Not voting for the democrat, and not voting for the republican DOES NOT EQUAL VOTING FOR THE REPUBLICAN. It just equals not voting......nothing more.

These lame ass tactics to shame and guilt people into voting a certain way are pathetic.

[Thinkingabout]

75. It is bs not to realize votes not cast for Democrats is not a positive for our Democtatic candidates

There is enough voter suppression by the Republicans and not voting is a positive for the Republicans. We had 66% non voters in 2014, what happened as a result, Republicans now has the majority in Congress. When Democrats dont vote the Republicans loves winning. This isn't bs.

[Sivart]

122. But it is BS....

But it IS BS to say not voting for a democrat is equal to supporting republicans.

One can chose to support neither the democrat or the republican. This would be the same result as if the voter had died.....no vote gets cast.

No, this is not ideal. Yes, we want everyone voting......But it is absolute and complete BS to claim that not being able to find anyone worth voting for is equal to supporting a republican.

Is BS and people should stop saying it.


This is a classic example of repeating a lie enough times that people get used to and and even start believing it. But it has always been a lie.

[artislife]

141. Can you supply a link to that?

I really would love to read how 66% decided it wasn't worth it. And would like to be able to quote the source.

TIA

[Thinkingabout]

147. I missed on the percentage of 66%, it was 63%:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/11/10/voter-turnout-in-2014-was-the-lowest-since-wwii/

[artislife]

150. Thank you!! nt

[stranger81]

192. The answer to this dilemma is to select better candidates.

It's not like we don't have any to choose from. Blaming people who are sick of choosing between death by firing squad and death by a thousand cuts is not an answer.

[artislife]

139. It just makes me dig my heels in further. nt

[restorefreedom]

79. there are other options

its not either vote dem, vote r, or stay home. several other party candidates as well as a nifty write in option. i plan to vote for all offices.

[Thinkingabout]

95. Yes, Nader provided a lesson in voting for a third, did not work out very well.

The Republican went into office. If you don't like the Democrats, you will probably like the Republican even less. Think your issues are not getting passed, thank a Republican Congress. This is fact.

[restorefreedom]

112. nader is not the reason 2000 went R

the election was stolen. gore actually won. some people argue that if Nader hadn't been running and gore had such an overwhelming number of increased votes then there would've been any question to go to the Supreme Court. It wouldn't of have mattered. All I have to say to that is I guess gore should've been a better candidate.he clearly didn't win enough votes from the nader people to make the Supreme Court decision moot. That's not the voters' fault, it's his. elections are won by candidates winning votes. if they don't have what it takes to win the appropriate number of votes, then they should not be in office. In gores case, it was stolen from him. But he didn't have enough votes to override the thievery.

[Thinkingabout]

118. If Nader had not been in there would have been more votes for Gore than Bush in Florida, the state

in question and it would not have gone to SC. Hey, I am not the one complaining all the time about Obama did not do this or did not do something else of which some claims they voted for him to do, look at the alternative, do you think for one second the Republicans are going to do the things you might find important? I can live without college tuition and many other things, I just happen to care about others and the future generations.

[restorefreedom]

120. i care about those things too

and I bet so did Gore and so did nader. It's not naders responsibility to not run so that we can shore up all the votes for democratic establishment candidate. And it's not the responsibility of nader voters to not vote for a candidate they believe in due to some kind of party loyalty to a democratic establishment candidate. In a democracy, candidates can run and try to win votes. Sometimes the presence of one candidate appears to be a "spoiler" because they have won votes that perhaps would've gone to someone else. But will never know that for sure. Some of the nader voters might not have voted at all. They might've voted for a different party candidate Than Republican or Democrat. Again, it's the responsibility of the candidates to win their votes nobody owes it to them.

[artislife]

142. Gore and H seem to have the same problem with the Left

They aren't compelling candidates.

[redstateblues]

158. Nader denialism lives on.

It's amazing to me how people who voted for Nader can't own their idiocy and the catastrophic results of their "protest vote". Green Party my ass. You helped elect George W Bush. Plain and simple. You did it. Own it

[jeff47]

228. 200,000 registered Democrats in FL voted for W.

Nader wasn't the problem. Gore's terrible campaign was.

Who says? Al Gore.

[Dawgs]

9. As far as I'm concerned voting for Hillary will be pointless.

I don't see any way that she can win.

[brush]

24. Have you been under a rock?

There's no way the repugs can win the way they've alienated Latinos, Blacks, Asians, women, gays, progressive whites (the Obama Coalition) . . . whoever the Dem nominee is will win it.

The demographics of the country are browning as I write. One thousand Latino/as are turning 18 daily and they are not going to vote for a republican. There are literally no longer enough conservative whites for the "nearly all white party" to win the presidency anymore. Their gerrymandering is the only reason they win the mid-terms, but 2016 is the presidential election cycle where we dems turn out heavily.

Are you aware the repugs haven't legitimately won the presidency since 1988? They cheated to get W in in 2000 and 2004, but with Anonymous around (see Rove's freakout on Fox on 2012 election night when his attempted election rigging in Ohio didn't work) and Dems on the look out for their shenanigans, they aren't getting away with that anymore.

With your post count I can see you're not new to this. You have to know this stuff.

Care to explain your post.

[Dawgs]

40. My explanation is Hillary.

I don't think people are interested in the status-quo anymore and the republicans are energized to vote against her. Also the 2014 election, while not being presidential, is something that the party is ignoring or hasn't learned from at all.

[brush]

52. Okay. See you in Nov. 2016

The repugs have no chance. Remember their promised autopsy about their lack of Latino support in the 2012 election?

They did nothing but double down on their anti-immigrant policies (Trump just recently calling them rapists and criminals). And there is their extreme zeal to try to defund women's healthcare — now that's a real winning recipe, going after the healthcare of half the electorate.

Then there's their too numerous to mention anti-gay pronouncents, and their voter suppression tactics to keep blacks from voting.

You sure all of that is going to fly with the anybodyg but their shrinking and aging out all-white base?

[Dawgs]

55. The problem is Hillary, not the republicans. n/t

[brush]

60. So what are you saying?

Hillary despite her flaws, has way more upside than any of those in the clown car.

Even you have to agree with that.

[Dawgs]

64. Absolutely she does have a much bigger upside.

Still think she's loses badly in the GE.

[brush]

70. We'll see then won't we.

The repugs haven't won without cheating since '88.

The days of the all-white party winning without POC votes is long past.

[Dawgs]

71. You keep repeating what the GOP have done in prior elections like that should mean something to me.

Why?

[brush]

117. They haven't won since '88 without cheating . . .

because the demographics of the country has changed quite a bit since them.

No longer enough people in the nearly-all-white party to win a national election anymore.

They just haven't figured out a way to appeal to minorities.

And they don't have much time at all to do that as the entire country will be a majority/minority population in 20 years or so. White won't even make up 50% of the population and many of those will be progressives.

It's just math.

[Jim Lane]

108. I think you're both wrong. The 2016 election is not in the bag for anyone.

Making absolutist predictions more than a year in advance is foolish -- either foolish complacency if you think the Republicans can't win, or foolish despair if you think Clinton can't win. The same goes for those who say with certainty that Sanders can't win.

If I had to bet on a party right now, I'd bet on the Democratic nominee to win, but I'd be willing to bet on the Republican if I were offered some odds or a point spread.

There are different strengths and weaknesses for each of our two leading candidates, each of our two remaining single-digit candidates, and our in-the-wings maybe-candidate. The same is true of the fifteen remaining clowns. The election might end up turning on a debate gaffe or on how many votes the Libertarian pulls in a close state. The Electoral College seems to favor us right now, so our candidate might even pull a Bush and become President after losing the popular vote.

Just remember, from the 2008 cycle, the looming general-election clash between Giuliani and Clinton, and have a livelier sense of the uncertainties involved.

[brush]

116. Correction since you seem to have misunderstood. The dem nominee will win.

Unless the repugs get away with cheating like they did in 2000 and 2004, there just aren't enough people in the nearly-all-white party to overcome the Obama Coalition.

They just haven't been able to, sans cheating, since 1988. That's a fact.

[Jim Lane]

131. I didn't misunderstand you. I just disagree that it's a sure thing. (n/t)

[onenote]

35. So, if Bernie gets the nomination, but I live in a state where he has no chance of winning

I shouldn't vote for him?

I'm supporting Bernie in the primaries.
I'm supporting the Democratic party candidate in the general election.
And no matter who gets the Democratic nomination, I will do everything in my power to ensure that we don't have a repub president.
Period.

[Dawgs]

42. No. Didn't say that. n/t

[onenote]

49. I thought you said it's pointless to vote for someone who can't win.

[Dawgs]

51. I said...

If Hillary gets the nomination I don't believe there is any reason to vote for her because I don't think she has any chance of becoming POTUS.

One, I didn't tell anyone else to do anything. And two, I wasn't talking about how she would do in my state.

Good for you on doing what you want. Period.

[onenote]

62. So you were just talking about her inability to win your state and your decision to vote?

Not whether, for example, someone should vote for the Democratic candidate in a state that candidate can win even if that candidate wasn't their first choice?

[Dawgs]

67. No. That's not what I'm saying.

I don't think she can win the general, with my state or not. I wasn't ever saying anything about how she would do in my state.

And, I was also not telling anyone to do anything.

[treestar]

184. LOL every vote adds to the total

So this is a real choice to encourage voter suppression. Among Democrats, who really need GOTV.

[Robbins]

11. If you don't support Clinton

you are ilrelvent In Democratic party.That's clear now.

[Jan Bunson]

12. Most Dems will vote for Hillary

Zero Republican will
Very few "Independents" will

Congratulations Jeb.

At least we will be able to say Hillary made history as the first woman to get the nomination of a major party...

[whatchamacallit]

13. Rejoice

and pick a better candidate next time.

[Jan Bunson]

14. Rejoice why?

I just predicted that Jeb W. Bush is going to be the next President.

I see no reason to rejoice.

I would love to see the first woman president, but Elizabeth Warren isn't running.

[whatchamacallit]

17. You said we could at least take pride in nominating a woman

I agree it's an important milestone. She's just not the right candidate.

[Yurovsky]

168. She's the right candidate if you're a corporatist...

they've already bought the rights to her Presidency, if she should somehow win.

They've already bought all the Repugs, so unless Bernie gets the nomination, the corporatist win again...


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hillary-pretends-drugmakers-insurers-are-her-enemies/article/2574543

[brush]

196. Still think Jeb is going to become president after that pathetic debate performance?

His campaign will be lucky to still be solvent come the next repug debate.

[brush]

26. See post #24, you of the very low post count

Hope you have a nice stay.

[Dawgs]

43. My guess is that there response is similar to mine. n/t

[brush]

54. Whoever that is it's most likely a repug trying to get dems not to bother voting

What about you?

[Dawgs]

57. Sorry, I don't buy into the "low count" BS that some use to discredit others. n/t

[brush]

58. So you don't think there are people paid to do that very thing?

Sorry!

[Live and Learn]

208. I think it against TOS rules to point out low posts and to call anyone a troll.

That is a MIRT decision alone.

[brush]

219. I didn't call anyone a troll.

And I like to see where in the TOS mentioning a low post count is banned.

[Live and Learn]

220. Oh sorry, 'tr lls'. i wonder what you meant by that? nt

[brush]

222. Sorry, explaining to someone "We have a lot of paid tr_lls who visit here . . .

Last edited Sat Oct 31, 2015, 04:07 PM - Edit history (1)

to discourage people from voting" is not calling someone a troll. Nowhere in that did I say she/he was a troll. Get your facts straight.

I let the person know that proclaiming that Jeb Bush will win the presidency raises suspicions on this site.

And do you really doubt that there are paid trolls posting here?

[Jan Bunson]

66. Wow.

Care to explain what I wrote that would make you say something like that, especially in light of your suggestion that the election could be stolen?

Kerry won and it was stolen.
The same thing could very well happen to Hillary.

I merely predicted that it would.

Could the same thing happen to Bernie? Yes.
I just think its less likely because of his cross-over appeal.

Why does that qualify me for a sarcastic "enjoy your stay"?

[brush]

72. We have a lot of paid tr_lls who visit here to discourage people from voting

That's why.

[Jan Bunson]

76. I assure that is not my goal at all

Let me be perfectly clear before I make one more post:

I encourage every one both here and in real life to register and to

Vote Democratic.

[in_cog_ni_to]

195. No need to blame her low post count for people no voting Hillary. Hillary supporters have done

that all on their own. Stop blaming other people for things Hillary supporters did.

That's not very kind.

[jeff47]

229. I've got 4 times your post count. Am I allowed to speak?

Do I get to shut you down for only having 1/4 my post count?

The giant flaw in your analysis in #24 is you treat voting as zero-sum. That everyone will vote, and will vote for one of the major parties.

You should take a moment to look at what happened during our centrist 2010 and 2014 campaigns. And our centrist 2004 and 2000 campaigns.

You won't see Latinos voting for Trump. But you also might not see them voting at all.

The election will be decided by "marginally attached voters". They always vote for one party, but do not always vote. The Democratic-leaning ones are utterly unaffected by "Republicans bad!". So your approach in #24 of saying "Republicans bad!" will not win them.

[brush]

239. You do realize the poster proclaimed Jeb Bush would win the presidency, right?

On this site I don't think it unusual that that should raise eyebrows and suspicions, especially from someone with a very low post count. I don't doubt that there are paid trolls that come hear and post provocative posts aimed at discouraging people not to vote — the fewer dem votes the better for the repugs.

As for your post, please translate. You mentioned the 2000 and 2004 presidential cycle elections, both stolen by repug cheating but you didn't mention the 2012 election and Rove's meltdown on election night on Faux Noise when he realized that his cheating didn't work that time (dems got wise and were on the alert for repug cheating).

You also mentioned the 2010 and 2014 campaigns, mid-terms where dems traditionally don't turnout as much as in the presidential cycle and where repug gerrymandering wins district, not national votes for the repugs even though they get fewer total votes (that should change with the 2020 census) . So I'm still trying to figure out what the point of your post is. Is it that the repugs will win the presidency?

If so, I have to disagree. Because of the changed demographics of the country, there aren't enough of the mostly white party to win a national election anymore without not just a sizable portion of the Latino American vote but also a major swath of the rest of the Obama coalition — African Americans, Asian Americans, progressive whites, gays and women. See some flaws in you analysis?

And remember, dems come out to vote in the presidential cycles, and again, as in 2012, the repugs aren't getting away with their cheating again.

I'm not alone in thinking the repugs don't have much of a chance in winning the presidency. Nate Silver on his 538 site has reached much the same conclusion as I have.

[jeff47]

240. You realize the post has more content than that, right?

On this site I don't think it unusual that that should raise eyebrows and suspicions, especially from someone with a very low post count.

If the only thing said was "Jeb's gonna win", then yes.

When they have other content explaining how they came to that, then no.

You mentioned the 2000 and 2004 presidential cycle elections, both stolen by repug cheating but you didn't mention the 2012 election

Elections can only be stolen when they're close. 2000 and 2004 were close because of low turnout, especially among Democratic-leaning independents. Don't give them a "Republican lite" campaign, and they show up. Making it too lopsided to steal.

In 2012, Obama was still running on "Hope and Change". It had been significantly tarnished from 2008, which is why he won by ~4% instead of ~7%.

As for Rove's meltdown, cheating was irrelevant. He was melting down over Ohio. Even if Romney had won Ohio, he would have lost the election to Obama.

You also mentioned the 2010 and 2014 campaigns, mid-terms where dems traditionally don't turnout as much as in the presidential cycle and where repug gerrymandering wins district

And overall turnout was below a "normal" midterm election, especially among Democratic-leaning independents.

Overall turnout doesn't give a shit about gerrymandering, btw.

Because of the changed demographics of the country, there aren't enough of the mostly white party to win a national election anymore without not just a sizable portion of the Latino American vote but also a major swath of the rest of the Obama coalition — African Americans, Asian Americans, progressive whites, gays and women. See some flaws in you analysis?

No. You continue to treat voting as zero-sum. That isn't true.

Using round numbers to make this easier to describe:
~30% of the electorate are Democrats. They will vote for the Democratic nominee.
~30% of the electorate are Republicans. They will vote for the Republican nominee.
~10% of the electorate are Swing voters. They're basically irrelevant and will likely split between the parties.

So, each side has about 35% at this point.

~20% of the electorate are Republican-leaning independents who HATE Clinton. She is Satan incarnate to them. And they can easily be motivated to vote via this hatred.
~20% of the electorate are Democratic-leaning independents. They are significantly to the left of Clinton on policy, making them not very enthused to vote for Clinton. Additionally, they can not be motivated by "Republicans bad!" or they would have shown up in our "Republicans bad!" 2014, 2010, 2004 and 2000 campaigns.

So now Republicans have ~55%, and we have ~45%. That's a big problem for us. And it doesn't look like team Clinton is even considering it a problem, much less trying to figure out how to get better than "meh" from Democratic-leaning independents.

You should probably also consider the age demographics from exit polls in 2008 and 2012 instead of only considering race. Obama lost among over 40 voters in 2012. He lost or tied among over 40 voters in 2008. We need "the kids". And who's currently the most likely to be a Democratic-leaning independent who's excited about Sanders and "meh" about Clinton? The kids. Clinton's campaign is not at all targeted towards them - her tuition plan is "We'll make it easier for you to get deeper in debt", and Iran is a bigger problem than climate change.

And most "likely voter" screens on polls exclude anyone under 26. They had to vote in 2008 to be considered "likely", which means they had to be 18 in 2008.

And remember, dems come out to vote in the presidential cycles

Which is why we had such massive turnout in 2000 and 2004!! Oh wait...

I'm not alone in thinking the repugs don't have much of a chance in winning the presidency.

If that were true, you wouldn't be working so hard to convince everyone that it's gonna be a cakewalk.

Also, lots of people were not alone in predicting a Clinton victory in 2008. Didn't quite work out that way.

Clinton is a dangerous nominee for us. She might pull it off anyway, but we can not keep pretending it's going to be a cakewalk.

[brush]

242. I think I'll go with Nate Silver . . .

as he has a great track record at predicting elections and he says the dems will win.

I don't believe for a minute your contention that repugs have 55% to dems 45%. Good luck with that.

The repugs haven't won legitimately since HW Bush. They just don't have enough people no matter how you try to convince us.

And btw, this site's purpose is to elected Democrats. Your purpose seems to be just the opposite.

[olddots]

84. ever heard of cathartic hypothisis ?

probably not huh Jan

[Agnosticsherbet]

16. It will be easy, because I will see who else is on the ballot and choose the best of the available

candidates.

General elections are not about the best possible candidate. They are about the best candidate on the ballot.

The whole call to never vote out of party loyalty is just a form of voter suppression. It should never be a matter of whether it is a Democrat or a Republican. Which person on the general elecdtion ballot will be the best representative of a voters interests.

Look at the ballot and ask, which of these "available candidates" is the best.

I have never seen a general election ballot where it was difficult to choose between a Republican and a Democrat for President.

Primaries are different. It can be very difficult to decide between candidates, especially on down ticket races. That is where homework comes in.

General elections are easy.

[NCTraveler]

21. Aren't you tired of this fear game you are playing?

What you are doing here isn't even based in reality. Yeah, all of these privileged individuals who won't vote for a progressives are "disaffected dems." That is a complete line of crap, fully made up, in order to make your point have merit.

[whatchamacallit]

23. Isn't "follow your principles and help a republican win" a fear game?

One we keep playing over and over and over...

[NCTraveler]

32. You are taking part in "you are either with us, or against us."

One hundred percent. When someone tells me the toughest vote in their life will be between Jeb and Hillary, I know for a fact they aren't a disaffected dem. That is extremely obvious.

You have almost every Clinton supporters here stating if their person doesn't get the nod they will vote for the person who does. Then you have over twenty Sanders supporters stating that "you are either with us or against us."

It is a fear game to you. It isn't working like you think.

[whatchamacallit]

38. Sorry, don't know what to tell you

Despite your assurances that Jeb and Hillary are miles apart, I disagree. Certainly when it comes to social justice rhetoric there are stark differences, but in most other ways, not so much. I didn't say I won't vote for her, I said it's going to suck.

[NCTraveler]

46. "Despite your assurances that Jeb and Hillary are miles apart, I disagree."

It would be funny if I didn't think you truly believed that. There is a very small difference between Gore and Bush as well. Real deep thought there.

[whatchamacallit]

48. Deal with it

I'm not alone.

[NCTraveler]

53. I agree that you are not alone. Neither is Trump. Look at his poll numbers.

Not being alone has very little to do with any of this. That statement is very personal to you, not the situation you are addressing. One must find comfort with others in order to think Clinton and Bush are similar. It is so far outside of reality that group think(I'm not alone) is the only way you cannot question your position. The internet has given people communities where people with outside thoughts can get together and feel as though they are a part of something bigger.

Deal with it? What a strange comment. What is there to deal with? Bush and Clinton are the same is on you, not me. Just trying to get you to think outside of the echo chamber for a bit. Sometimes challenging ones own views is the most difficult thing we can do in life. If you truly believe what you are typing, you need to challenge yourself.

[whatchamacallit]

59. Lots of bogus assumptions there

The most bogus is that my opinion of Hillary was formed in a box or echo chamber. You're just going to have to be ok with my not loving Hillary.

[NCTraveler]

63. Truly not one assumption.

It is fully based off of your comments. I went no further than your comments. Bush=Clinton. Have at it. I sure wouldn't want that level of thought attached to me. Good luck. I still hold my position that your blatant game of fear isn't working as well as you though. Neither is your "their both the same" propaganda. Best wishes in spreading the thought. You will find communities of support online.

[whatchamacallit]

65. Are you insinuating something about my identity and purpose for participating on this site?

How old are you? You don't have to say, but odds are I've been a democrat longer than you've been alive. And as a democrat, I stand by my opinion whether it displeases you or not.

[NCTraveler]

69. "Are you insinuating" "How old are you?"

"Bush and Clinton are the same."

It just keeps getting better.

[whatchamacallit]

73. Sorry you're displeased

This exchange became pointless several posts ago. If you think my opinion is trolling, you're free to contact MIRT.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. I don't sign loyalty oaths or vote for labels.

[whatchamacallit]

29. What a horrible, selfish person you are

Respect

[restorefreedom]

86. you must a privileged, selfish person

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

90. Thanks. I'll ask my chauffeur what he thinks.

When he gets finished polishing the yacht and grooming the polo ponies.

[restorefreedom]

94. and gassing up the limo! :)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

100. One of the limos.

[restorefreedom]

113. ho ho! an entire fleet! heh. nt

[840high]

161. Very good.

[WillyT]

27. It's The Young Ones I Worry About The Most...

Kids who have never voted before, and are now registering and planning to vote... because of Bernie Sanders.

The ones making signs... getting creative with their enthusiasm... buzzing all through social media...

One of my sisters has been involved in several campaigns throughout CA, and works with the legislature for the State of CA, told me this story just the other day...

Her daughter, 21, who has never been particularly political in any way, was watching the debate the other night. My sister tried to ask her a question, and my niece gave her the stink-eye and said...

"Mom... I'm trying to listen to what bernie has to say!"

My sister was floored, but grinning from ear to ear.

If Hillary wins the nomination there will be a huge wave of disappointment... and not just with the young.

Us oldsters will probably manage to muster the will to vote for TLOTE once again.

But if the young think the system is rigged/unfair/etc... who knows?

[onenote]

47. oh, please. you and I and a bunch of us have lived through decades of disappointment

Nixon. Reagan. Bush. Bush again.

My candidate for President lost in the first election I was able to vote in. I didn't vote for a winning US Senator until I was in my mid-30s. But I didn't walk away from elections because, boo-hoo, my candidate didn't win.

I suspect there are more people on this board than I can count that were first time voters in 2000. Having that victory snatched away didn't turn them off. It energized them.

If you're right and the "young ones" can't handle defeat, they're not much use to us in the long run no matter what happens.

[Codeine]

175. This is so true.

My first vote was for a sexy, inspirational man from Massachusetts called Mike Dukakis. I got over it. People who are discouraged that easily were never going to be a reliable voting bloc anyway.

[Codeine]

177. Well then they're fuckin' idiots.

Sometimes your side loses. Sometimes your candidate of choice fails miserably. Sometimes you try really really hard and nothing seems to turn out right and all you wanted was a Pepsi and SHE WOULDN'T GIVE IT TO YOU!

Well so the fuck what? You regroup, double down, and try again next cycle. You don't get discouraged or disappointed about some shit being "unfair"! That's pathetic and weak! I've voted for a ton of losing candidates in my life and it didn't make me throw my toys out of the pram.

[WillyT]

179. You Know That... I Know That... But Many New Kids Full Of Hope Have Not Been Made...

Jaundiced As You Our I.

Many had the opportunity to vote, and have not chosen to because they think the system is bullshit... rigged...

Hell... we thought so in Florida 2000, and Ohio 2004...

They do not necessarily have anything to base your faith/work-ethic on.

[WillyT]

185. Plus... "YOU'RE A FUCKING IDIOT" Has A Really Low Electoral Approval Rating...

[Jester Messiah]

28. I've never pledged loyalty to any party.

I'm the guy with the vote, it's up to them to earn it, not the other way around.

[jwirr]

30. Only once before have I felt so terrible about voting for a

Democrat and that was in 1968. At the time I was an angry
hippie now I am an angry old hippie.

When I think of having to vote for her I feel empty. Editing to say that I will vote for her if forced to because voting for a R doesn't just make me feel empty they make me feel sick.

[whatchamacallit]

33. I feel ya

[MoonRiver]

31. You guys and gals are really doubling down.

Guess it's because you are losing so badly.

[whatchamacallit]

34. The American people are losing

[Live and Learn]

209. I guess calling people losers will get them to support your candidate in the future.

Good luck with that tactic.

[99Forever]

36. Enough to be certain that the next POTUS....

..will not be named Clinton.

[MohRokTah]

37. You don't seem to understand national presidential politics very well. eom

[whatchamacallit]

39. Enlighten me

[MohRokTah]

41. Primaries and the genreal election are two different things.

Once you get that, things should fall into place.

[whatchamacallit]

45. Right

And if you detest both parties candidates?

[Live and Learn]

210. For you, you mean. nt

[thelordofhell]

44. People need to know this..............

The primary process will obviously pit people from the same party against each other because of their preference for a certain candidate. However, once the primaries are over and we go into the general election, the candidates will support each other. If Hillary loses the primary, she will support the primary winner. Also, if Bernie loses the primary, he will support the primary winner. They both know what it's like to support the Democratic nominee for President because they have done it before, and will do it again. And unless some people here are actually from a different party, the Democrats here should act the same.

So fight hard for your favorite primary candidate everyone!! It's what the primary process is all about!! But know that when the primary process is over, we will have chosen the Democratic Party candidate for President, and the other primary candidates will follow the choice!! It's how our election process works.

[Robbins]

50. Don't be so sure

Clintons have nothing to lose if they refuse to support Bernie In GE.

Just because bernie would say support her in GE doesn't mean i will do it.

Clinton supporters can claim she is liberal all she want and she can claim to be progressive all she wants.I can remember their real
history.and it sure isn't being progressive.

[Sheepshank]

68. boy are you on a roll today

such a negative nellie, posting all sorts of negativity about being disenfranchised, losing the party, the party losing you, the party falling apart. I wonder why?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=705691

[Robbins]

74. You and fellow centrists are getting what you want

I have voted dem since 1992 and i am done with these fake corporate types who would cut my ssi,medicaid,and food stamps benefits to pay for more war or to be "Bi-partisan" and get along.

2 worst trade deals in history passed by 2 centrist dems-Bill Clinton and Obama.and I voted for both of them.

[mythology]

97. Just like they did to Obama?

Oh wait, they didn't do that. They have deep historical ties to the party.

[Maedhros]

127. Obama and Hillary are much, much, much closer in political ideology

that are Hillary and Bernie (or Obama and Bernie, for that matter).

Obama and Hillary are both in the pockets of Big Finance.

[Codeine]

182. Sanders isn't a Democrat, though.

There's really no telling what he might do.

[BainsBane]

56. Democrats will vote for the nominee

Those who aren't Democrats will vote Republican or third party.

It will be particularly interesting to see what they do if Carly Fiorina is the nominee.

[Live and Learn]

212. Interesting theory. nt

[JoePhilly]

78. Another StayHomeUnderground thread.

[whatchamacallit]

87. No, I'll vote

I just wonder if this is the election where the party learns it can't take unity for granted anymore.

[JoePhilly]

89. I'm not really referring to you ...

... but to the tone of the thread responses.

Some of these folks sound like they'll take their ball and go home if their candidate does not win the primary.

[whatchamacallit]

99. I'll do it

but it's going to feel like a hostage negotiation.

[dirtydickcheney]

82. I have little doubt that if HRC gets the nomination

She'll suddenly "move to the center" and decide that the TPP is perfectly fine the way it's written within a week.

[in_cog_ni_to]

126. She'll also lose the Ge - BIG TIME.

Millennials are not going to vote for her. She's part if the 1% problem in this country and from what I read, many, many Progressives aren't voting for her. She can't win without a LARGE majority of THE 83.1 MILLION millennial votes or without Progressive VOTES.

She will lose the GE.

[dirtydickcheney]

134. Agreed - she'll lose the GE

The DLC Dems are making a HUGE mistake in not realizing that they could sweep both the House and the Senate with Bernie. He'll galvanize people that have given up on politics long ago.

But it sounds like the DLC Dems don't want to win elections, they want to stay in bed with Big Money first and foremost unfortunately.

[in_cog_ni_to]

143. Exactly. They must protect their gravy train and they know Bernie isn't going to play along with

their corrupt games. He would stop it all.

The DNC doesn't care if the Dems control Congress. They want to move to the right. We'll probably see the beginning of the end of SS and Medicare and Medicaid will just be gone after Repubs take over the WH and a huge Majority in the House and Senate. Public school will be privatized, Unions ended, National Parks Privatized and kiss the ACA goodbye. If we thought things were bad under Bush, just wait for a Rubio, Trump or Cruz president. Should be fun.

[SidDithers]

85. If Hillary getst the nom, I wonder how many disaffected "dems"...

will alter their tune so as not to be banned from DU.

Posting priviliges before principles!!

Sid

[restorefreedom]

88. no alterations required

posting can go on about any topic including the election. as long as us "disaffected voters" don't come on here and advocate for a non dem in the election, all is well. we are free to have our opinions and express them to others, just no trash talking dems on du. no biggie

[dirtydickcheney]

93. Wondering if it goes back to "you cannot criticize"...

we'd have to pretend that HRC is progressive when I've yet to see anything that says she'll challenge Big Money other than tout how she's "for women" which, of course will leave Big Money shaking in their boots.

[restorefreedom]

111. i think commenting on policies is ok

but the tos is probably more clear. i think we are basically not to advocate for other candidates or tell people to vote for non dems

[whatchamacallit]

91. I will most likely leave of my own accord

because I won't be able to feign support as she unmasks and confirms more years of American decline.

[SidDithers]

101. Promise?...

Bookmarking.

Sid

[whatchamacallit]

105. I won't promise, but it's a high probability

And you'll have one less person countering your Toronto Rose broadcasts.

[Live and Learn]

215. Or you could do what I have promised to do.

Regardless of the primary outcome every single one of posters that have lied about Bernie are going on ignore. I will never hear from them again and my life will greatly improve from that alone.

[Walk away]

92. Well then we won't be hearing much from you after she is nominated....

maybe you'll find other things to chat about!

[whatchamacallit]

96. Likely true <cue thunderous applause>

Might be a boon for my quality of life

[liberal_at_heart]

137. And I'm sure we'll get the blame when Hillary loses the GE. God I can really see why

people hate politics. Politics and religion. They are both all about control and power.

[Live and Learn]

217. I don't think she will lose but only cause the GOP is a mess this time around.

I think she will make more mistakes and be subject to impeachment hearings and lose the GE for us the next time around.

And yes, I will blame the collective 'you' but you won't hear it because the collective 'you' will be on ignore after this primary.

[emulatorloo]

103. Give it a rest and go knock doors for Bernie.

Doing something positive like that will help win the nomination for Bernie.

[whatchamacallit]

106. Thanks

maybe I will.

[emulatorloo]

107. Me too!

There's going to be a big effort this weekend to get out and talk to potential caucus goers. I am in Iowa.

[whatchamacallit]

110. You've reminded me

I'll feel a lot better about the outcome, whatever it is, if I know I did my best.

[randome]

109. If you'll blame Clinton for winning, will you blame Sanders for losing?

I doubt things will be as bad as you think.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[whatchamacallit]

114. Well, seeing as he was always a long shot

he deserves praise for how far he's gotten. It will be hard to blame him because nobody thought it was his to lose. If I have one quibble, it's his underestimating how damaging an unquantified label of "socialist" is to his candidacy. He needs to do better explaining it to the dummies. It's not over, there's a long way to go and I'm behind him all the way.

[rateyes]

115. I never took that pledge.

Those who act like they don't need the left don't get my vote. They don't need me, then they don't get me, and I hope my fellow leftists follow suit. One day the light might go on in the centrist democrats' heads after they keep losing election after election as is the case with the DNC under the leadership of centrist Wasserman-Schulz rather than leftist Howard Dean.

[B Calm]

119. What is your agenda posting this? You want the republican candidate to win?

[Beacool]

121. Sure, the sore losers can stay home and give the Republicans the WH.

Because there's no difference between a Democrat and a Republican, right?

The next president will get to shape SCOTUS for years to come. He or she will probably have the opportunity to appoint two to three justices.

A pox on the Democrat who chooses to stay home in 2016, regardless of which candidate wins the nomination.

[Zorra]

123. We have lost the House, the Senate, and the majority of Governorships,

since 2010.

It is often said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

[in_cog_ni_to]

124. Most of the 83.1 million millennials will stay home and THIS Progressive will vote Green Party

I'll write in Bernie's name and vote Green Party down ticket. I will not vote for more of the same corrupt Oligarchs.

I hope most Progressives vote their conscience and stand on principle and stop supporting a party that hasn't supported them for the last 35 years.

[liberal_at_heart]

129. I agree about the Millennials and I too will be writing Bernie's name in and voting Green down

ticket.

[redstateblues]

160. Another Naderite. Thanks for giving us Bush

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

148. They will?

Are you telepathically linked to all of them? Who appointed you the millennial spokesperson?

[Codeine]

181. The time-honored political tradition

of holding one's breath until one turns blue. Voting Green worked out so well in 2000!

[Adrahil]

146. Another woe-is-me Bernie fan post. Give it a rest. nt

[Timber4598]

151. Why wouldn't dems want Hillary nominated

Here is a great example why I feel war hardened Hillary should get the nomination. She has even dodged sniper fire...

[NaturalHigh]

154. Vote for whomever you want.

I'm voting for Clinton in the primary and the general, but your vote is your own. I don't go in for the "party loyalty" crap.

That said, even though there is no doubt in my mind that Hillary Clinton will win the primary, if Sanders happens to win I'll vote for him.

[liberal_at_heart]

156. Thank you. I think you are probably the first poster I have seen that has not tried to blame the

end of the world on not voting for the nominee. You cannot begin to understand how much I appreciate that. All of the blaming and name calling and bullying was really starting to turn me off to politics altogether. I can see why so many hate politics, but I will keep my focus on my excitement for Bernie. For the first time in 20 years I am excited to vote.

[azmom]

155. The Democratic Party will lose many votes.

[Sheepshank]

157. Isn't it funny

How this situation regarding being disaffected if a preferred candidate loses, is almost always applied to Bernie supporters...and not the other way around.

Seems like Bernie supporters have a reputation...all created by themselves.

[whatchamacallit]

201. It's easy to be magnanimous when your candidate is the frontrunner and you're certain she will win

Remember a sweet little group of Hillary supporters called PUMA?

[DCBob]

159. It will be get easier as the time nears to cast your vote.

I promise.

[ibegurpard]

172. we're not talking about the political geeks

That frequent sites like this. We are all going to vote. We are talking about the 50 plus people I have never seen before that are showing up for Bernie meet ups when we can barely get a dozen at our Central Committee meetings. I know that blaming progressives is easier than examining your uninspiring candidates and lack of strong messages however.

[merrily]

162. AFAIK the party loyalty pledge is an internet thing. IRL, Clinton supporters obtained Hillary

loyalty pledges.

Once the primary ends, it will be "Merry Supreme Court and a Very Happy say hello to New President Trump," or what I like to call terrorist politicking.

[liberal_at_heart]

163. yes, the internet is a very convenient medium for anonymously bullying people.

I don't respond well to being bullied.

[merrily]

164. I will do my best not to even seem as though I am trying to bully you.

[liberal_at_heart]

166. Ah, thanks merrily.

[winter is coming]

174. I'm not convinced Hillary's SC picks would be anything to write home about.

And that's assuming she could win, which is far from certain. She's got more baggage than O'Hare during a Thanksgiving blizzard.

[merrily]

176. I have been posting at DU too long. I know how the recorded message responds to that.

"Her picks would be a thousand times better than those of any Republican in the clown car."

Thing is, I am not sure of that, either, esp. on economic and business issues, Executive power, etc.

Oh, look! Big Foot!

[mmonk]

167. It's a wild card but we will see.

[Codeine]

178. Man, if you guys spent half as much energy

actually trying to get Bernie nominated as you do throwing venom on DU he'd already be measuring the drapes in the Oval Office.

[joshcryer]

180. Same as in 2012.

The Green Party might manage 0.5% of the vote.

[treestar]

183. why feel that strongly anti-Democratic?

If one is a Democrat, one might prefer Bernie, or O'Malley, or Hillary, but they are all running as Democrats. We are picking the person to go against a Republican. No matter, one's fellow Democrat should be better than the Republican. You're trying to make two parties out of the Democratic party. Trying to get us so upset over the breach created by creating a nominee that we split up the party. If the nominee is not preferred, they are still a Democrat and closer to what we want than any Republican.

I get hostility against Republicans, but this amount of hostility to fellow Democrats is dysfunctional, as a political party is for the purpose of making a coalition to get as close to what we'd like as possible.

[whatchamacallit]

204. Wake up, nobody is buying this simplistic white hat/black hat bullshit anymore

At least nobody with a clue.

[Hortensis]

226. You've got the WRONG clues -- lots of them, What.

Wake up and look around. This isn't just about Hillary or Bernie.

A lot of people are really scared at what the GOP and its Big Money and far-right reactionaries are colluding to accomplish. The GOP's move to extremism is both deliberate and successful. It's not giving it up, it's doubling down.

Time to educate yourself about the bigger picture?

[jeff47]

230. How about educating yourself?

My generation was the sacrifice in a lot of "bipartisan" deals brokered by Democrats. For example, high tuition and a shitty job market for "the kids" caused by "free trade" deals are not new problems. They're just getting coverage now.

When my choice is getting shit on, or getting shit on with an apology, I'm not particularly motivated by the apology.

To understand that, you'd have to educate yourself on what our party's centrists have "accomplished" over the last 40 years instead of only reacting to Republicans.

[Hortensis]

234. You think you have it tough NOW, Jeff47?

Your generation was just caught in the transition.

Various large power groups have come together on the right to destroy public education as we know it . Through religion they have extensive access to moderate and liberal minds as well. They have been making gains for decades through packing of the courts at all levels, and, yes we do see this in SCOTUS too. They are rewriting textbooks that are used around the nation.

I really hope that somewhere in your education you at least learned that fascism is CONSERVATISM run amok, because conservatives do not know that. They've been TAUGHT OTHERWISE. You are fighting on the wrong side, Jeff47.

“The definition of fascism is the marriage of corporation and state.”
― Benito Mussolini

[whatchamacallit]

235. She's the flip side of the same old establishment coin

the one that says "heads I win, tails you lose". BTW in my opinion HRC is a conservative. Even her recent evolutions on social issues are purely political.

[jeff47]

237. Oh, we were just fucked over in the transition. That makes it all better!

That makes it SO much better that our party worked their ass off to move that transition along!

Various large power groups have come together on the right to destroy public education as we know it

Hrm...Who's running the Department of Education now? 'Cause there's been a major push to destroy public education under the current administration in favor of charter schools...

I really hope that somewhere in your education you at least learned that fascism is CONSERVATISM run amok

Then perhaps our party should be fighting that instead of seeking a "warm purple place" to help advance it.

You are fighting on the wrong side, Jeff47.

No, you are not looking at what your "allies" are actually doing, because it has not directly hurt you. Yet.

[aikoaiko]

241. Actually an outspoken HRC supporter has convinced me that it won't matter if it's HRC or a Repub.

Because I'm a white middle class BernieBro.

[olddots]

186. If we throw a vote away out of principal

those principals will never get that vote back . I think it was Dottsie Shmengar who said that and it still confuses me .

[Vinca]

193. The real peril is younger voters staying home.

Geezers like me show up to vote the party line in order to (hopefully) protect Medicare and SS. Bernie is the candidate who has captured the younger voters this time around and I'd be worried about them coming out even if Bernie is the candidate.

[jeff47]

232. Of course. We kids have been sacrificed many times to protect Medicare and Social Security

Problem is, "the kids" can figure out that they keep getting the sharp end of the stick.

This is a large problem the party needs to address, and I don't see the DLC-style Democrats even realizing there is a problem.

[NaturalHigh]

198. Oh no. Not this again.

How long before Secretary Clinton locks up the nomination and we can get this sort of silliness behind us?

[MineralMan]

200. No idea.

Some have already declared that they will not vote for Hillary Clinton if she gets the nomination. That's their decision, not mine. I hope they'll change their minds, but if not, then good luck to them.

I support Clinton for the nomination, but will do as I always do - vote for the Democratic nominee. I've seen what happens when Democrats lose presidential elections, and I don't like it one bit.

But every voter decides his or her own vote. It's up to them to make a judgment which party will do the best job. Presidential elections are binary in nature. One party or the other wins.

[onenote]

202. +1 from a Sanders supporter

who agrees with you completely.

[cantbeserious]

203. What Party Loyalty Pledge

eom

[whatchamacallit]

214. The unstated, but none the less expected one n/t

[cantbeserious]

216. One Must Belong To A Sect That Does this One

eom

[Live and Learn]

206. Thank gawd I don't do pledges. nt

[Autumn]

207. I've never made a party loyalty pledge so I don't have one to honor.

When it comes to loyalty I am loyal to my family, my friends, my dog, and my horse.

[whatchamacallit]

218. :)

[99Forever]

211. I have not, nor will I ever made a "party loyalty pledge."

There is no situation that would ever compel me to do so.

I have been a registered and active Democrat for almost half a century. If Clinton is the nominee, that will end.

[ibegurpard]

213. Clinton Inc has got this

I don't know how but they say they do. Maybe they plan on replicating the stellar 2014 ground game that never materialized...

[L0oniX]

224. Hmmm decisions decisions ...vote for the good or vote for who can win.

Would they vote for the Devil if he had the best chance of winning?

[Eric J in MN]

231. Don't think of it

...as voting for the Democrat; think of it as voting against the Republican.

[jeff47]

233. When the policy differences come down to

"get shit on" versus "get shit on, with an apology", the apology isn't a terribly good motivator.

[silenttigersong]

238. If Hillary gets the nomination

There will be otherwise apathetic voters enlightened by Bernie Sanders,who will believe that the election was bought.Many will not vote for Clinton ,will search for 3rd parties that rep them Green Party ect.Hopefully these parties will continue to strengthen and do the 1ST order of Real Democracy_lobby elected officials with broad citizen support_Citizens United_Open Debates.Bernie Sanders will be a winner regardless.