Unfortunately it's a fact, some voters will not support Clinton if she is Democratic nominee

[Cheese Sandwich]

Personally I would never encourage anyone to skip an election. But we have to face facts. A lot of the younger voters who have been activated by the Sanders campaign, they see it as a real movement and they probably won't turn out for Hillary in a general election.

For example I don't know if you guys saw this thing on Salon.com today but it was by a writer named Walker Bragman. The title was "More like Reagan than FDR: I’m a millennial and I’ll never vote for Hillary Clinton". (Link)

The subtitle was "I never thought I'd be encouraging people to not vote for the Democratic nominee for president. But I am".

Sadly, Walker Bragman says:

I am a 27-year-old, politically active, progressive millennial voter. I am a political junkie; my background is political science and American history. However, if Hillary Clinton gets the nomination (a big “if”), I will likely not vote for her, and will instead write in “Bernie Sanders” … and I encourage my readers to do so as well.

I never thought I would be encouraging people to not vote for the Democratic nominee for president. Looking at 2012, history illustrates that the only way to change politics is through primary elections: If you want change, vote for the party aligned most closely to that change, and participate in primaries, but when it comes to the general, select the “lesser of two evils.” However, I am disgusted with how the Democratic Party is resisting that process.

Again, it is NOT something I would ever encourage.

But he goes on to explain his view that the Democratics sort of rigged the process by burying the debates:

The DNC’s actions regarding the number of debates, the scheduling of those debates and the treatment of the candidates is disgraceful, and undemocratic. Debbie Wasserman Schultz has disappointed me as a young, active Democrat. The second debate was on a Saturday night, and the viewership was predictably small. In fact, three of the seven debates are scheduled for Saturdays. The DNC’s leadership has seemingly aligned itself with Hillary Clinton, someone who, in my opinion, is an unqualified candidate for the following reasons:

And the writer then goes on to elaborate on the reasons he won't support Clinton. The reasons include her neoconservative foreign policy, neoliberal domestic policy, and also some general complaints about her personality.

He predicts that choosing Hillary "threatens the future of the Democratic Party" and concludes with a plug for Sanders:

That’s why I am not ready for Hillary. Bernie Sanders has given America a vision of what a statesman looks like — the caliber of political leader we can have if we choose. He’s been consistent throughout his entire career on issues that matter. There are videos of him from the early ’90s that sound remarkably similar to what he is saying today. He voted against “welfare reform,” he supported universal healthcare, and in terms of foreign policy, he’s been vindicated. Bernie gives me real hope, and I cannot support the “lesser-of-two-evils” model when there is such a person in the race with a serious chance of winning.

So yeah I guess it's just a sad fact of life some people won't vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination. Obviously not many on DemocraticUnderground.com would condone this kind of thing but at least we know it's out there.

[Thinkingabout]

1. Democrats will step up and vote, the DINO may or may not.

[Loudestlib]

42. It takes a DINO to vote for a DINO

....

[Thinkingabout]

45. Maybe so, I am a Democrat who will be supporting Hillary Clinton in the

Primary.

[rhett o rick]

95. Once again you got the highly prized (for some) #1 response spot. It must take some

effort to get it so often.

[TM99]

151. Too bad only 33% of registered voters

are Democrats.

And I am certain that not all of those will vote for Clinton.

So what y'all going to do to win over these disaffected youth, the angry progressives, and the absolutely needed independent leftists not bound by the party oath?

[rhett o rick]

209. DINO's are people that call themselves Democrats but agree with Republicons on many issues.

Sen Sanders has ignited a desire by many to throw out the corrupt government establishment including the DINO's that are the elite of our Party. It's a Democratic Principle to have an honest government and not let big money buy our government. It's the DINO's that wallow in the wealth of the 1%.

DINO's voted along with the Republicons to invade Iraq. Democrats knew that Cheney was lying.

The people that might stay home are the same people that have been staying home. Millions never vote but are now enthused at the opportunity to throw out the corrupt puppets of Goldman-Sachs and billionaires.

You can try to shame them, bully them, but that won't work. That's why Sanders will do better in the General.

[Xipe Totec]

2. That is bound to be the case regardless of which candidate.

There will always be some subset of voters who will not support candidate <place name here> regardless of circumstances.

[brooklynite]

3. Just like Dean voters didn't vote for Kerry?

[LiberalArkie]

30. I find that hard to believe. I know a lot of people here in Arkansas would have voted

for HRC rather than Obama, but that was a racial decision whether they wanted to admit it or not. But I don't know if it would have made any difference in the outcome, it never does on a national basis.

But Dean vs Kerry? Bush was still flying too high at that point.

[Art_from_Ark]

58. I would think that some Arkansas voters would have preferred Hillary

just because of her ties to the state. At any rate, Arkansas has not voted for a Democratic ticket that didn't have at least one Southerner on it since the 1940s.

[LiberalArkie]

62. I think that is most of the south, the reason for the Southern Strategy, so that

the Republican would not be just a Northern party. Part of me says wants to Republicans to win the Presidency since it would be the last time they ever won anything again. Be like a Whig. But then again it scares me also, and I believe it scares the people in charge of the Republican party. I never thought they wanted to win with McCain/Palin.

[Hekate]

100. I think brooklynite is being sarcastic there.Dean is a Democrat and so were his enthusiastic workers

I was one of them. We were disappointed at the media massacre of his campaign, but we picked ourselves up and worked for Kerry all the same.

[LiberalArkie]

104. I was for Dean also, but did the Kerry thing anyway. The Democratic party really

hardly ever has any bad candidates. We some times have some that are just better than other Democrats and our worst candidate is still better than anything that the Republicans can throw into the fracas.

[BlueMTexpat]

155. Exactly.

I was also an enthusiastic Dean supporter who voted for Kerry in the GE.

I am currently a Hillary supporter.

Unlike supporters of the candidate as described in this article, I will vote for whoever is the Dem nominee.

Those supporters who will write in a name other than that of the Dem nominee - whoever that nominee may be - will in essence be voting for the GOPer nominee. Period.

If any one of the insane GOPer candidates wins, the USA as a nation will likely be finished because these people do not recognize any legitimate authority other than that in their own mind. Based on their rhetoric, they in essence favor ochlocracy and that is what would be the "rule" of the land under any one of them. That is literally what is at stake here.

So I have little patience with any individual who currently supports any one of the Dem candidates but who says/is "proud" to say - especially here on DU - that they will not vote at all or will write in a name other than the Dem nominee, whoever the nominee is, if that person is not the candidate they currently support. Such people are not true Democrats - hardly "Democratic Socialists" - and never have been or they could not even tolerate the idea of a GOPer winning in 2016. They are more likely Libertarian than anything else.

If they are currently saying such things because of passionate support for their candidate, fine - even though I have little patience with such an attitude. I can understand being passionate about a candidate and likely even said similar things myself during the 2004 primaries because I felt very passionately about Dean's candidacy. I wouldn't have posted such things on DU because I was only a lurker in 2004 so don't bother searching for them; I only signed up "officially" in 2008.

But if those same individuals actually carry through as they say they will - whichever candidate they now support - and the Dem nominee loses because that was a contributing factor, I will consider them no less than traitors.

They won't ever know me, so they could hardly care less, I suppose. But I don't believe that I will be alone in feeling that way.

[Hekate]

212. Amen

[floriduck]

4. Walker Bragman is not alone.

His reasoning is consistent with mine and I'm 66 years of age.

[Chan790]

19. ...and mine. n/t

[LiberalArkie]

31. I am 67 and I feel almost like that, but I will vote for HRC anyway. I really disliked

Last edited Mon Nov 30, 2015, 08:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Blanche Lincoln and the games the Arkansas Democratic party pulled during the primary, but I still voted for her. The Primary is where you voice your objection with a candidate, not the General. You just hold your nose and push the button. Just like all the Hillary supporters will do here if Bernie is the nominee. The General is where we support the Democratic party nominee. Because the alternative is something that we do not want to think about.

[enid602]

5. real mature

I get it. If Bernie can't have it, nobody can. Real mature.

[roguevalley]

26. seriously?

[saturnsring]

48. yea seriously that attitude is seriously childish -

[Chef Eric]

73. No, you really don't get it.

I'm 52 years old, and I've been following primary politics my entire life. In 2004, it was Kerry vs. Dean. In 1984, it was Mondale vs. Hart. In 1980, it was Carter vs. Kennedy.

In all of those contests, the difference between the candidates did not seem that big, and therefore there was a widespread willingness to support the winner, regardless of who he turned out to be.

It's much different now. Clinton evokes a negative reaction from many of us because of who she gets her campaign donations from, and how she voted as a Senator. Furthermore, because our entire country has swung so drastically to the right, Sanders stands out distinctly as a genuine liberal. Ultimately, people understand that the difference between the democratic candidates is much, much bigger than what we've seen in the past.

The sad truth is that this problem reflects more on Clinton than it does on Sanders' supporters.

[upaloopa]

107. No it doesn't. She gets her donations from people like me.

You just don't know anything about it.

[Chef Eric]

111. Here is a link to a list of Clinton's top contributors.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=n00000019&cycle=Career

I don't see your name on it.

[cui bono]

134. +1

[Hepburn]

181. Chef, you hit that nail on the head.

In prior primaries, I may have liked a particular candidate who did not get the nomination...but for the GE, I had no problem supporting the nominee of the Dem party. This primary is different. I truly dislike HRC. I did not dislike her at the beginning of primary season, but as time has passed, I have found her to be a divisive and disliked influence among Dems. This does not bode well for the GE. I know others who feel this way. IMO: If nominated, she is going to lose to one of the POS Republicans running for POTUS -- I have no doubt about this. One of the main reasons, besides her negatives, is that people are looking for change...not the same old same old. Clinton is the latter and not the former.

BTW: I am 67 and I first got involved in politics for JFK in the 1960 election!

[Chef Eric]

202. Thank you Hepburn.

I also fear that Hillary could lose the GE. What a complete disaster that would be.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but most of these Republican clowns seem even worse to me than GWB.

Don't get me wrong. I think GWB was a stupid, incompetent, dangerous, arrogant asshole. However, unlike some of the current Republican candidates, GWB didn't seem to be especially motivated by bigotry or hatred, and he seldom seemed to intentionally bring out the very worst in his admirers.

What a horrible state of affairs.

[Hepburn]

211. Nail...hammer...you did it again!

Yep, GWB was bad...but I have to say that there are many of the current GOP primary candidates that are even more totally unacceptable.

[arikara]

186. Exactly.

Well said.

[Betty Karlson]

6. K&R. Bookmarked for later. eom

[ismnotwasm]

7. And a lot of them will

There is a huge number of RW/Libertarian "Millenials" as well. I wish people would stop pretending they're some sort of monolith.

[retrowire]

74. Oh yes indeed

almost an equal amount in fact.

[JI7]

8. this is true of any candidate

[Vincardog]

185. It is however more true of some candidates

[Gothmog]

9. These voters may change their mind when they see the GOP nominee

Each and everyone in the GOP clown car is scary in their own right and not voting for the Democratic nominee may mean that we have someone like Trump or Carnival Cruz as POTUS

[jeff47]

117. Nope. They are looking to vote for someone. Not against someone.

If they were interested in only voting against the Republicans, they'd already have no problem with Clinton.

Their motivation is not your motivation. You can either try to understand them, or you can just curse them a year from now.

[ibegurpard]

146. they've seen ALL of them

While Democrats are hiding our debates on Saturdays and weekends. And yet Clinton runs behind all of them in polling of some crucial battleground states. When are you going to acknowledge you have a serious problem?

[Live and Learn]

12. What a disgusting comment. It should and probably will be alerted on. nt

[JaneyVee]

14. Advocating not voting helps who?

Black lives? No.
The middle class? No.
Supreme court? No.
Climate? No.

Etc etc etc.

[Live and Learn]

15. That has nothing to do with your disgusting comment and does not excuse it.

You should remove it - posthaste.

[comradebillyboy]

28. Regarding your now hidden comment

I am in total agreement with your sentiment.

[1StrongBlackMan]

32. So am I ...

and regarding the DUer that linked to that author ... well ... all the "I wouldn't personal advocate for" that's in the world, do not hide his/her intent for posting it.

[MeNMyVolt]

140. Nailed it. nt

[Starry Messenger]

64. Same.

[redstateblues]

94. Ditto

[MeNMyVolt]

141. Yep. n/t

[bvf]

79. Where is anyone advocating not voting?

Your comment is a misrepresentation (deliberate?) of the article linked to in the OP.

[NYCButterfinger]

11. You don't vote, don't complain

[Thinkingabout]

49. Exactly.

[taught_me_patience]

173. it seems like a lot of bernie supporters like to complain

They are following the lead man. Bernie just comes off as so angry all the time. Its not the positive image I think presidential candidates should have.

[Live and Learn]

13. As one that has registered many of them, I agree. nt

[ibegurpard]

16. No matter how many loyalty oaths I personally

Am willing to sign there are ten more people like me that won't. The Democratic Party is willfully steering us into an iceberg.

[Starry Messenger]

17. If a person was a child during the Bush years, I can see why they'd be spoiled by

having a Democratic President for most of their adult years. However, I've been through several cycles of horrible Republican Presidents, to the detriment of my health and future years, and won't let it happen again if I can help it.

[Bleacher Creature]

208. Well said. Thank you. nt

[NCTraveler]

18. I would never change my vote...

Because of what this person writes.

Do you know how many republicans won't be voting for Clinton? The guy in the article doesn't have a long track record of voting dem either.

I truly believe Hillary can win this without a vote from the "progressive" being discussed here.

[Cassiopeia]

125. Its not the republicans that can be swayed for the dem party

it's the number of republicans that would normally skip out that will go vote against Hillary.

Hillary has long coat tails. I doubt she could take the GE, but I know absolutely she would shore up the House and Senate.

[mythology]

20. There's a very simple solution to your candidate being outvoted

Unfortunately it requires hard work and discipline which, if this guy's solution is to take his ball and stomp off, he isn't up for.

You can dislike that Clinton has a significant lead in the polls, but that's because more Democratic voter's prefer her message right now. Instead of working hard to change that, whether for this election or future, this entitled brat thinks if if he can't get what wants, he shouldn't participate.

What happens when Sanders can't get everything the kid wants? What happens when Sanders compromises? I suspect the same shit. He needs to grow up and recognize that he's far better off getting more of what he wants is better than getting none. This is especially case when Sanders Sanders and Clinton have a Senate voting record that is 93% the same.

I have no use for this sort of short sighted illogical "thinking".

[FlatBaroque]

21. because more Democratic voter's prefer her message right now

I'm gonna need a bigger shovel

[Maedhros]

23. If more Democratic voters do indeed prefer Clinton, then that vindicates my decision

to leave the Party.

[comradebillyboy]

29. you won't be missed nt

[Maedhros]

41. I don't expect to be missed.

The Republicans sure aren't bemoaning my absence, why should the Democrats? Both are working against my interests.

[randys1]

84. Then you cant be a Woman or Gay...or Black...

[Loudestlib]

145. ?

Why would you say this? You don't have to be a Woman or Gay or Black to have your interest represented by the Democratic party. I grew up think that our party fights for the underdog. We speak power to the powerful for those whose voices can't be heard. Your post is one of the saddest things I've read.

[randys1]

170. You are either intentionally misreading what I am saying or what I am not sure.

I am saying that if you choose NOT to vote because you cant vote for Bernie, or Hillary for that matter, you are in fact saying that the massive difference in the parties on social issues doesnt matter to you

[redstateblues]

127. Sounds like another Naderite

[riversedge]

36. Farewell.

[Hekate]

103. Bye-bye. Don't let the door hit ya.

[truedelphi]

33. Here is my question to you:

What has beenyour life experience over the last fifteen years?

Have you a home that you own or else rent for cheap, and adequate monies each month for insurance premiums, prescrioption meds, the kids' college fund and other necessities?

Or did the Corporate Establishment leave you in the gutter, after your home was foreclosed, after your job was sent overseas, or after you suffered a medical bankruptcy.

Currently enough Americans have been absolutely to hell and back under both the Establishment Big Party "leaders" that they re tired of it.

I know this from both being out there soliciting for voter names on petitions for local causes and also from reading the Pew surveys on how Americans do not care for either political party.

You can look to yr life and say things are fine, but a lot of Americans, some 40% of them, do not join you in your adherence to the Mainstream Political game that leaves the Bush family, the Clinton family and soon the Obama family with their oversight of "charity" foundations worth billions. And their ability to garner over $ 400,000 per speech in front of corporate podium for life, since they have helped out Big Banking, Big Military, Big Energy and Big Agriculture while the middle class is slowly being eliminated.But most of us are sick of it.

[bread_and_roses]

53. Exactly - and by promoting same old same old HRC

the establishment Ds are doing their part to make sure we peons - which these days are most of us - are locked into to the Company Store - if we're lucky, that is. Look at our crumbling inner cities and Rust Belt - abandoned by the Ds long ago to line their pockets with Corporate donations - to see what happens to those of us not lucky.

You load sixteen tons, what do you get?
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store

Tennessee Ernie Ford

[A Simple Game]

101. What gets me is that the ones that haven't suffered must at least know a few people that have

and still have no empathy for them. Being hard hearted used to be a Conservative attribute, then again I suppose it still is.

I'm foolish enough to still think of the Democratic party as the liberal one. How last century of me, I keep forgetting why I left the party 20 years ago.

[truedelphi]

116. I have been as bewildered as you have.

Of course, Orwell tried to make the point decades ago that it is inherent in the human race to want to "lord it over" others. In fact, one of his theories ws that we have the endless wars not simply so that the One Percent continues to profit, but so that the "lower humans" have their basic commodities blown to smithereens p so that they have nothing. In other words, it is just as valuable to the one Percent to know that others have nothing, as it is for them to have things. (Which is mind blowing but it seems to be shaping out that way.)

I know a long while ago, this other DU'er let me know that maybe some people had a hard time dealing with their Health Insurer, but she was the type of person who was smart enough and organized enough to persevere and get her claims presented properly and paid for. And if others couldn't, well, her attitude seemed to be that there was not only a pay off for the Big Insurer in terms of profits, but there was a payoff to her in feeling superior.

[A Simple Game]

121. DU seems to be contaminated more and more with the type of person you recall from the past.

Certainly not liberals in their beliefs, empathy, or compassion, and probably not even in sympathetic thoughts.

[1StrongBlackMan]

34. +1. n/t

[bvar22]

22. Very few states will be "in play".

Hillary will NOT win my Red state under any circumstances, therefore
I am free to vote my conscience, as are many millions of Americans in other states not "in play".
I would caution anyone in a state that even looks like the vote might get close to vote for the Democratic nominee.

I WILL be there on election day voting for all down-ticket Democrats,
because if Hillary is the nominee, the down-ticket Democrats are in deep trouble.

[Major Hogwash]

27. California may be the deciding factor in next year's primary election cycle.

Unless Bernie knocks her out in April, California may play a major role next year.

[truedelphi]

38. California has over 67 voter Registrar Officials,

one for each of its counties, and a crookeder group of officials you cannot imagine.

We saw the "Gm food Label requirement" proposition end up being called as a "win" for Monsanto, while over one million ballots were left uncounted!

And that is just par for the course.

If there is ever a chance for a third party candidate to win the Presidency, and they need to gain California's electoral votes to do it, there is a fat chance in hell it will happen.

[Beacool]

24. Yes, because all Democrats and Independents will rush to vote for Sanders.

Of course there is always a fraction that will refuse to vote for the nominee, if its not the candidate of their choice. Fortunately, the majority of Democrats will vote for the party's nominee. These type of scare tactics are nonsense.

[truedelphi]

44. Please don't ignore history. Historically speaking,

For any Presidential candidate to gain the WH, they need to have the "disaffected, and marginalized" voters.

Obama got the WH in 2008 because he got the votes of those dissatisfied with the way things were. His vote distribution that year reflected his winning over the progressives who usually don't vote, as well as the RW'ers who were fed up with Bush and business as usual.

Go and listen to videos of discussions in the past about who will win the election of 1988, or 1992, or (again) 2008 and think long and hard about what is being said.

There are only 34 to 36% of all registered voters in this country who consider themselves to be Democrats so loyal they will vote for someone or even a dog as long as it has a "D" after it.

And the Republican loyalists tally even lower - at around 22 to 24%.

That leaves over 40% of voters who are looking to see their interests represented.

The meme of "Lesser of two evils" served the DLC for one or two election cycles. But people are waking up - why eat one shit sandwich a day (which I agree, may be somewhat better than being required to eat two of them) when we can work to change everything and get people actually taken care of.

[floriduck]

50. Here, here!

[Beacool]

152. Not to be petty, but it's "hear, hear".

[yuiyoshida]

68. This!

[Jackilope]

75. + 100

[Chef Eric]

80. Well said, truedelphi. nt

[rpannier]

88. So in your 40% where will these people go?

Because at this point there is no viable third alternative to win the election
So under your scenario Clinton will still the election
As it stands there is very little out there to suggest Clinton will not win the nomination, though six months is an eternity in politics
Clinton still scores higher with people of color than Sanders and she does better among women (though the overlap between poc and women could be the main factor)

I am hoping she does not win the nomination, but it's likely she will
And it is more than likely that she will be president
The whimsical fantasy that either of the three Democratic nominees is just that, whimsical fantasy
And most of that is due to poor options the Republicans provide

If you're hoping or fearing that some new scandal will come along that will derail her it's unlikely. She's weathered so many of them that turned out to be nothing more than partisan, farcical, fantasies that I'm guessing most people have tired of hearing them

[truedelphi]

93. How the hell would I know where these people will go?

I do know from sitting out in the wind and rain of March 2014 and then the extreme heat of California's Lake County, April and May 2014, that people are fed up.

It is really likely that the people who told me, "I have become apolitical, as the only thing that happens is that election after election, the Corporations get their candidate in while we get nothing" those voters will stay at home.

Anyway you might contact the Pew Survey people - they keep doing the research showing how fed up people are, with the result being the over 40% of voters not feeling any connection to either of the Two Main Parties.

[jeff47]

120. If voting against the Republican motivated them, this OP wouldn't exist.

These people are looking for someone to vote for. Not keep up the insanity of voting against worse. They can't be motivated by "Republicans bad!!!".

She's weathered so many of them that turned out to be nothing more than partisan, farcical, fantasies

Years later.

She doesn't have years between the nomination and election day. And she's handled every single "scandal" so abysmally that they last for years.

[thucythucy]

183. "Voting against worse" is not "insanity"

if "worse" means the rights of people of color, LGBTs, people with disabilities, elderly people, and immigrants all get thrown under the bus, something that is inevitable if the GOP wins in 2016.

Make no mistake, I'm voting for Bernie in the primary, but the idea of sitting out the general if Clinton wins the nomination is what I'd call "insane." I'm old enough to remember people telling me there was no difference between Gore and Bush II, and look what that got us. A Nixon win in 1968 brought us six more years in Vietnam. A Reagan win in 1980 brought with it tens of thousands of AIDS related deaths, all because he didn't want anyone in his administration to say the word "condom." And they all brought us the worst Supreme Court since the Dred Scott decision. I could go on and on...

I have all the same concerns about Clinton that you do, which is why I'd prefer she not be nominated. BUT, if she is nominated, I'll do what I can to help with her election.

This nation, this world, simply can't endure another Republican administration. A GOP win in 2016 will screw us for generations to come. I knew Bush II was going to be bad (and tried to warn my Nader friends about it) but he turned out to be far worse than even I imagined.

This time I'm under no illusions. A return of the GOP to the White House is game over for this country, and anyone who sits out the next election will be culpable for the shit storm that follows a GOP win.

[jeff47]

184. Yes, it is insanity. Because it means a slow loss of all those rights you are concerned about

We need to fight to fix our problems. Not merely slow their spread.

Again, these voters are not motivated by "...but Republicans are worse!". We can not afford to pretend that can motivate them. This is an enormous problem for Clinton and her supporters to solve, but I don't see any evidence that they even think there is a problem, much thinking about solutions.

Instead, we get lectured about how "real Democrats" will vote...by people who apparently don't realize "real Democrats" only make up 30% of the electorate.

[thucythucy]

187. I doubt any single candidate can "fix our problems"

without an enormous grassroots movement--which has to happen independent of presidential politics.

My thought on this is that presidents, even the most progressive, don't bring much in the way of progressive change, not since FDR at any rate (and he was excoriated by much of the left as a plutocrat sellout). What they can do is STOP progressive change dead in its tracks, the way Nixon did in '68 and Reagan did in '80. They can also use crises to lurch us intensely to the right, the way Bush II did after 9-11.

I don't know that electing Clinton will mean "a slow loss of all those rights..." Hard to see her reneging on marriage equality, for instance, and I certainly don't see her going after Planned Parenthood and reproductive rights the way Cruz, Carson, et al have and will.

In any event, "a slow loss," is better than a sudden, wrenching loss because it gives us more time, which is important. A slow loss of blood may be lethal in the long run, but it's less of a problem than a massive gun shot to the head. If someone asks me to choose between a slow loss of blood, and the head shot, I think it's truly "insane" to go with the head shot.

Again, I'm talking about the general, not the primary. To be clear: are you saying it makes no difference in the general if the GOP wins?

As for whether the Clinton people see the problems coming, I have no idea. I DO know that I've been talking to Sanders folks about the need to prepare, if and when he wins the primary, for the massive shit storm the GOP will unleash. I personally see no evidence of that, though I admit it's not as though I'm a campaign insider. But as a for instance, has anyone in Bernie's campaign that you know of thought about the role anti-Semitism will play in the coming campaign? If you don't believe Bernie's being Jewish won't be an issue, then you've never lived in Indiana, Ohio, rural California, the Carolinas... One of the tactics the GOP used against Dukakis was a subtle anti-Semitic dig against his wife. You think the GOP will be above using this against him? People talk about how Clinton will motivate Republicans to vote against her--you don't think conservative evangelicals will be motivated to vote to keep "the Jew" out of the White House? To be clear--I deplore even the thought of it, but I think I'm only being realistic in anticipating the probable GOP tactics.

To repeat: I hope Senator Sanders wins the nomination. If he carries Iowa or even does well there--within 10 points of Clinton--and then carries New Hampshire, I think we'll see a huge shakeup in the polls. Clinton stumbled badly in Iowa the last time around, so we have to see what happens there next year. Bernie should have a huge ground game advantage in New Hampshire, even though it is a more conservative state than Vermont.

But if he doesn't carry it off, I hope we can all pull together to keep the fucking Republicans out of the White House, at least until we get two more Supreme Court justices on the bench. Otherwise we really are doomed.

[jeff47]

189. Finding a "Warm, Purple place" to work with Republicans requires giving up something.

Republicans won't come to that "Warm, Purple place" unless you give them something. Which means sacrificing someone to please them. During Bill Clinton's presidency, it was the young and the poor who were sacrificed to please the Republicans.

For some reason, those groups aren't terribly excited about Hillary Clinton's run. Odd, huh?

In any event, "a slow loss," is better than a sudden, wrenching loss because it gives us more time

You've had 40 years. And you've utterly failed to reverse our losses, even when given large majorities in Congress.

You are out of time to fiddle. Time to notice the city's already on fire.

[thucythucy]

192. "You've had forty years..."

I have? Who gave me supreme power over these last four decades to effect change? And when did I suddenly become Nero?

You haven't answered any of my questions, the most important being: are we talking about the general or the primary? If what you're saying is you see no difference, should Clinton win the nomination, between a Clinton White House and a Trump or Cruz or Carson White House, then really further discussion is pointless. You honestly see no difference between Clinton's support of Planned Parenthood and women's health choices, and those in the GOP field? That's just one issue--but it's an issue of supreme importance to millions of women, including and most especially poor women whom you say you care so much about. Evidently you're willing to throw them all under the bus, because their issues aren't--what?--important enough to you to motivate you to get off your ass and vote in the general?

And you haven't given me any indication that you've given any thought at all to what will happen the day after Senator Sanders wins the nomination. I'm hoping people more involved in his campaign are mulling over their strategy, because, as I say, Bernie is definitely going to be facing the most intense shit storm the political world as ever seen (as will Clinton, if she gets it), and simply writing OPs on Democratic Underground is not going to carry the day.

Best wishes.

[jeff47]

195. Yes, you have had forty years.

Unless you want to claim I should have stopped the Greenspan commission by organizing my third grade class.

If what you're saying is you see no difference, should Clinton win the nomination, between a Clinton White House and a Trump or Cruz or Carson White House, then really further discussion is pointless.

Hey look! A lovely strawman.

A Clinton administration will continue the slow road to hell via "Warm, Purple place" negotiations. A Republican administration would make it a faster road. But I'm going to live long enough to reach hell on either road.

Evidently you're willing to throw them all under the bus

When you give me the option to throw them under the bus, or gently place them under the bus, does that make a difference? They're still under the bus.

And you haven't given me any indication that you've given any thought at all to what will happen the day after Senator Sanders wins the nomination.

That's because the point of his victory is not to instantly change the world. He is not the messiah. The point is to show that you don't have to keep giving away bits and pieces to the Republicans. The point is showing that you don't have to be terrified of being a Democrat to win.

That lets us elect more and better Democrats, because we don't have to fight both the Republicans and our own party. (See: Former Senator Blanche Lincoln, and how the party interfered with the primary to prevent the "wrong" Democrat from winning. Or all the Republicans our DNC chairwoman has endorsed.)

Sanders winning the primary is step 1 in a very, very, very long battle to undo the damage that Goldwater and his ideological descendants started, massively advanced by Third-Way-style Democrats.

But please, continue to call me shortsighted.

[thucythucy]

204. I have no idea what you're on about. Really, I don't.

I support Sanders. Will vote for him in the primary. I've said that several times now.

I will also support whoever gets the Democratic nomination for President of the United States, and all the Democrats on my ballot. Evidently you will not, which will only harm, not help, any progressive agenda you might hold dear. If you will in fact support the Democratic nominee, then we have no argument. None. But since you've been unwilling thus far to make that clear, my fears about a Trump or Cruz presidency is hardly a straw man. No more than my fears of a Bush II presidency were in 2000.

As for my ability to change the world in forty years, well, just as Bernie isn't "the messiah" (and whoever said he was?) neither am I. In fact Bernie has been in politics longer than I, and at a higher level--shouldn't you be pissed off at him for not making the world more to your liking?

And you mistook my question about what happens after the nomination. I'm talking about the general election campaign for president. Bernie isn't going to be automatically anointed as soon as he gets the Democratic nod. He will be opposed by the same ruthless, unprincipled sleazy but oh-so-well funded opponents as Clinton, should she get the nomination instead. In fact, I predict the campaign against Bernie will be even more ruthless, since Clinton isn't nearly the same existential threat to the powers that be.

That's your whole argument, right? That Bernie represents genuine change, and Clinton doesn't? So why is it so many Bernie supporters seem to think he'll have an easier time winning the general than Clinton? I think they'll both have an uphill battle, which is why I'm so concerned about party unity.

You don't like Clinton, that much is clear. And you'd prefer to arrive at "hell" faster rather than slower, for some reason I don't fathom at all. It would seem to me that anyone who has had a taste of genuine Hell would be in no hurry to get there, but who knows? Some of us are masochists. Some of us, not getting our way in all things immediately, would just as soon pull down the temple entire, and consequences be damned.

Not me, though. If Hell is coming, I'd just as soon put it off as long as possible, for everybody's sake.

[ibegurpard]

147. They don't vote!

How many elections have to happen where this happens before you finally get it???
When people with shitty lives are being threatened with their lives becoming even shittier do you really think that motivates them? No it doesn't. You have to give them something to vote FOR that will improve their life.

[Major Hogwash]

25. Do write-in votes count?

Yes, yes they do!!!

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. Yes write-ins count ... But they don't count for electing the President you want, though ...

only the President that no one wants.

[Major Hogwash]

46. If the majority of the voters cast write-in votes for a person who is not the nominee . . .

. . . then that person automagically becomes the President that, you say, no one wants.
But, obviously, the majority wants that person.

Yours is an odd comment.
Almost like you don't believe in the majority of the people deciding elections in this country.

[1StrongBlackMan]

51. If ifs were skiffs, none of us would have to swim ...

Yours is an odd comment.

I'm certain my comment does sound odd ... of late, and among a segment of DU, reality seems to have that effect.

[Major Hogwash]

56. Weak.

[1StrongBlackMan]

128. Okay. n/t

[randys1]

86. You are an odd duck alright, suggesting that a write in candidate probably wont win

the WH...

what is WRONG with you

[1StrongBlackMan]

131. Stockholm Syndrome ...

Or, possibly a firm grasp of reality? ... You pick.

[Major Hogwash]

150. I don't think you 2 know how the Electoral College actually works.

Before the advent of political parties in the 1800s people in this country cast their votes for whoever they wanted to be President.
And then each of the several states counted those votes and then those states sent representatives to the Electoral College to cast their vote for the President.

It's just a small matter of history.

[1StrongBlackMan]

161. I am very well informed about the electoral college and how it works ...

and if you knew as much about it as you think, you wouldn't be raising it in a discussion of write-in candidates and their viability to win elections in the US.

[JoePhilly]

35. They are called Idiots, or more commonly ... Republicans.

[onenote]

39. It's probably also a fact that some voters won't support Sanders if he's the nominee.

I think it's short sighted either way.

The thing that disturbs me the most is that the author of the piece in the OP doesn't seem to understand that he's screwing his own future if he doesn't do everything possible to stop the repubs from winning the WH.

If a repub wins the WH, a long list of Executive Orders that Obama issued on things like minimum wage, climate change, etc. will be repealed the next morning and a long list of odious executive orders will begin to be issued. That isn't going to happen if either Clinton or Sanders wins the WH.

If a repub wins the WH, there is a high probability that the Supreme Court, which basically has a 4-4-1 split now, with the one siding a bit more often with the conservatives, but not always, will turn into a 6-3 split with the Conservatives dominating the court for the next generation or two.

It's going to be damn hard to make progress at the voting booth with Supreme Court that will expand Citizen's United, not roll it back and that will uphold every restriction on voting rights the repubs can come up with.

And I hope the author doesn't have any gay friends. Otherwise he'll have to explain how he didn't do what he could to ensure that the Supreme Court didn't shift in a way that resulted in a conservative majority rolling back the right to same sex marriage (and/or elevating freedom of religion to a place where it swallows up all other rights). Because that will happen.

In short, I agree with those that say this author needs to grow up and stop demanding that he get the pony he wants. I'm voting for Bernie in the primaries and if enough other voters join me, great. But if not, I'm on board with Clinton without reservation. Because the stakes are too damn high. And I will bet everything I own, Bernie himself would be the first to say so.

If you want Bernie to be your leader, you damn well ought to be ready to follow his lead.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

60. I don't want 'Bernie to be my leader'.

I want the policy choices he stands behind to be enacted, because I think they will benefit America. If I honestly believed Hillary would enact the SAME policies in the same way (ie helping the poor and lower classes, not continuing to funnel money to the rich) I wouldn't have any objections to her.

It's not about 'Bernie'. It's about the actual policies, and has been and will be. And voting FOR something, not AGAINST something else.

[truedelphi]

71. Same thinking runs rampant here in my household. n/t

[onenote]

92. You better hope Bernie is a leader if you want him to get things done.

Last edited Tue Dec 1, 2015, 11:12 PM - Edit history (1)

Sorry, but by definition a successful president requires a successful leader. And if he can't get folks to follow his lead -- if his supporters don't want to be led -- he's doomed to failure.

[thucythucy]

188. Excellent post.

Thanks.

[randys1]

87. If we actually manage to lose the WH, Women and Gay and Black Americans will die

the rest of us will be responsible

[jeff47]

130. Then perhaps you should be coming up with ways to solve this problem

instead of hurling insults at these angry voters.

[rhett o rick]

210. And that's exactly why we need to heed the OP and nominate Sanders. He has a much better

chance of getting more votes that Clinton. No matter how hard people try to bully those voters that want to change our government to clean up the corruption that Goldman-Sachs represents, many are not going to care if the "system" once again disenfranchises them.

Sadly those that follow Clinton don't really care if we get a Republicon in the WH. They will support her no matter what she has done, no matter what she stands for. They better start looking for their scapegoat.

[riversedge]

43. Joan WalshSeriously did @salon sponsor a contest to find the dumbest dudebro writing about Hillary

Well said Joan!! A progressive Democrat advising folks not to vote if Clinton is the nominee! How stupid is that!



Joan Walsh ‏@joanwalsh 9h9 hours ago

Seriously did @salon sponsor a contest to find the dumbest dudebro writing about Hillary Clinton? http://www.salon.com/2015/11/30/more_like_reagan_than_fdr_im_a_millennial_and_ill_never_vote_for_hillary_clinton/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow …

[Cha]

154. Some people only care about them damn selves.. not a clue about the Planet. They're so into

their own little hissy fits.

[WillyT]

47. It's A Risk The Party Establishment Is Willing To Take, I Guess...

The DNC’s actions regarding the number of debates, the scheduling of those debates and the treatment of the candidates is disgraceful, and undemocratic. Debbie Wasserman Schultz has disappointed me as a young, active Democrat. The second debate was on a Saturday night, and the viewership was predictably small. In fact, three of the seven debates are scheduled for Saturdays. The DNC’s leadership has seemingly aligned itself with Hillary Clinton, someone who, in my opinion, is an unqualified candidate for the following reasons:

From OP... reasons at link.

The DNC has played a dangerous game...

And nobody knows what the fallout will be.

[Major Hogwash]

61. The topic of this thread gives me hope.

That even though the political machinery has been re-engineered in her favor, we, the people, can still cast in write-in votes for Bernie.
So, no matter how the primaries play out . . . I can still cast 2 votes for Bernie, one in the primary season, and another in the General Election season, whether he is the nominee or not!!!!

This is a great day, bro.

[randys1]

89. Depends on just how selfish certain folks are if Hillary is the nominee.

Actua lives will depend on who is elected, as to ANY con vs ANY dem.

[WillyT]

91. And I'm Coming To The Realization That It May Just Happen No Matter Who We Elect...

It's just about the SPEED of our demise.

Hope I'm wrong.

[Old Codger]

52. Sadly

There are a large amount of seriously disillusioned people out here who are sick and tired of being wooed by the establishment as has happened continuously and are just fed up to the top and overstuffed with bovine excrement from the so called leaders of the Dem. party. Having a candidate quite literally stuffed down there throats as seems to be happening this round is pretty much over the top for quite a few of them... I still beg them to not allow the R's to take over complete control, we may never get it back again and it will quite seriously and literally be the end of America as we know it and hope to rebuild it. If they take over entirely you will not see another chance as we have now to get a candidate that truly cares about the average everyday like Bernie does...

If through inaction, by staying home and not voting they are allowed to take control it will be a disaster like we have never even contemplated before.

IMHO, if you don't vote don't bitch about the consequences.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

63. And if that happens, the blame will lie squarely on those who chose the unelectable Hillary.

Not the people who don't want to vote for her.

If a candidate can't convince enough people to vote for them, the problem is with the candidate, not the people.

[BlueMTexpat]

157. No, the blame will lie with those

who don't vote at all or don't vote for the Dem nominee - whoever that person is and whatever one may think about that person. Period.

So far, based on what the polls and endorsements show, Bernie is less convincing for the majority of Democrats than Hillary, whatever you may personally believe or hope. Perhaps that will change; perhaps it won't.

Do you seriously think that Dem primary voters are not capable of selecting the candidate that they believe would be their best shot at the Presidency?

If you are indeed a serious Democrat, you will support the Dem candidate in the GE. If you're not or if you won't, please take your pique and leave. Bernie himself would be ashamed of you based on his own words, e.g., Hillary on her worst day would be better than any GOPer on his/her best.

[Andy823]

54. It's post like this one

That make many here NOT want to support Bernie Sanders. If you really want the guy to win, stop posting crap like this.

[NorthCarolina]

55. People * Want * Change

It's as simple as that.

[Agnosticsherbet]

57. This is a conversation best left until after the primary is decided.

It could just be hyperbole.

[doc03]

59. I am sure there are some voters that won't support Sanders

if he becomes the nominee. So what does your statement prove?

[tom_kelly]

65. Well...

As a registered Dem, if HC is the nominee I won't vote. It will just be more of the same if she gets in office. It won't matter, to me, whether its a repub or HC because things will, on the most part, stay the same either way. If I'm saying this as a lifelong Dem, what will the Independent voters and the repub voters looking at their "clown-car" do? With Bernie they have a choice. With HC they have hate.

[Hekate]

214. How did you feel about Gore vs Dubya? Was there a dime's worth of difference between them?

Nader said he didn't think so. How do you think that turned out for the country?

[Bleacher Creature]

66. Those people shouldn't be on this site.

Period. It's not an opinion, but a stated term of being allowed to post here.

[Andy823]

69. They seem to want to take over this site

Now I think there are a lot of Sanders supporters that are really behind him, but I also think there are a lot of them who simply "claim" they support him while they to about trying to divide this board with outlandish comments, like that they won't voter for Hillary if she wins. The "trolls" have been doing damage here for some time, but lately it's like an infestation of them have showed up and all of them post shit that Bernie himself would object to, but they just keep on posting it.

Anyone who won't vote for the nominee, no matter who that may be out of the three, is either insane, helping the republicans, or both!

[zentrum]

67. Really scares me.

The Millennials I met on Thanksgiving were ardent about Bernie and didn't like or trust HRC. Tried to draw them out about the importance of voting for her in the general if she prevails in the primary. But they were non-committal.

Her supporters are refusing to see there may be a real problem in the general. If Bernie doesn't win the primary, I'm girding against the s&*t storm of "scandal" memes the rightwing is holding for her. We have a problem.

Neither DWS or HRC are very good politicians and it shows.

[baldguy]

70. Old saying: Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

People who refuse to vote for Democrats and use "they're not liberal enough" as an excuse are no better than Teabaggers who refuse to vote for Democrats and because "they're not conservative enough". Both are ill-informed, self-centered, unthinking, whiny, selfish little weasels who enjoy wallowing in their own martyrdom, all the while having little compassion for the suffering of their own fellow citizens & offering nothing to alleviate it.

We're standing on a precipice, facing barbarians who seek to push civilization off into the abyss. Today, at this time in history, the Democratic Party is the last, best hope to prevent that from happening.

Too many who claim to be progressives think that tearing down the Democratic Party is somehow a reasonable & constructive thing to do when facing barbarians. Ask the bickering liberals in 1930's Weimar Germany how that turned out.

[sharp_stick]

72. those voters are assholes

fuck them and the horses they rode in on.

[Le Taz Hot]

160. Well, there ya go!

I think the Hillary supporters should get millions of bumper stickers and rally signs that say just that. It's sure to be a winner!

[Perogie]

76. ONLY 68% of Iowa Democrats think Clinton is trustworthy

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/polling/ia/ia11252015_I76ptrnw.pdf

I'm sure that is probably true across the nation. That will keep a lot of Democrats from going to the polls. Trust me I know some.
If you can't motivate the low information voter then you probably won't win the election.

[7962]

77. I know some of them.

[arcane1]

78. I hope they at least SHOW UP and vote on the state and local elections n/t

[WillyT]

82. That's What's Ironic... I Always Vote, And It's Usually For Down Ballot Candidates And Propositions

You and I live in California, and most of the national business is done before we pour or fist glass of wine.

[jeff47]

114. I wouldn't count on it.

Clinton has the potential to be a very large drag on the party.

As for doing something about it, all you need to do is look at all the people in this thread cursing the voters or demanding silence and obedience. Clinton isn't going to do anything about this problem until WAY too late.

[seabeyond]

81. It is also a fact, many will run away instead of voting for a Socialist. Meh.

[MisterP]

83. non-Sanders voters I mention her to inevitably say "erch--isn't there anyone running against her?"

of course I'm happy to oblige with even dyed-in-the-wool Pubs

the party establishment is so used to blaming its own voters for any loss that they're quite okay with losing the general if the loss fits their old narrative of wicked lefties withholding their vote from someone who doesn't represent them

alas, if every Dem Sanders voter backed Clinton 101% AND brought 5 other Clinton voters for the general--it wouldn't be enough: there's still 20% of the country voting GOP just so she doesn't get in, and another 60% of the country shrugging and going back to nonvoting because Champagne-Popping Neolib #5 doesn't actually care about them regardless of pretty polished Superbowl ads

[Mike Nelson]

85. I will be joining Hillary & Bernie...

...in enthusiastically supporting the Democratic Nominee! Can't wait to V*O*T*E with them!

[upaloopa]

90. This is obviously a desparation OP. Bernie can't win with just talking points so you

have to make this shit up.

We will vote in sufficient numbers and Hillary will be president. Bank on it.

[pnwmom]

96. So? We've always known the misogynists in the party won't vote for her, among others.

And we know they exist, even though no one will ever admit to being one. (And with most of them, it is probably unconscious. Just as others are unconscious of their racism.)

And so there are some who won't vote for Hillary -- and some who won't vote for Sanders, for other reasons.

You seem to think you can take the votes for all the Hillary and Martin supporters for granted. You shouldn't.

[seabeyond]

108. And since there are misogynists that will not vote for a woman, no woman should run.

I believe some felt the same about an African American man.

[pnwmom]

115. Yup. That seems to be the idea. There are too many men who loathe and despise her.

They're not misogynists, though -- not even a single one of them.

They just can't stand Anything. About. The. Woman.

[seabeyond]

119. Yup. Women will once again, carry the day. My prediction.

Well, and AA community, Latinos, Gays. Anyone whose lives will be on the line with a three branch Republican win.

[Tommy2Tone]

97. Democrats that don't support the nominee

are not Democrats.

Nothing new here because there is a part of this party that will never be satisfied. Most are well off elite who won't suffer like the majority of us who this election means more than fighting the good fight.

[RiverLover]

158. Most of us care more about the less fortunate than she does. Or any other DINO.

From the OP article~

Hillary Clinton has called her husband’s “welfare reform” bill, titled the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, “necessary” as recently as 2008. For starters, welfare reform of the kind offered in the legislation had been a Republican dream since Reagan’s touting of the “welfare queen” as a part of the Southern Strategy) — and Bill gave it to them. The Clintons both say this move was responsible for putting people to work, and to an extent that is what happened. But what they leave out is the fact that after its passage, thousands of poor Americans stopped receiving benefits, and extreme poverty spiked (particularly among minority communities).

Reasonable minds may disagree about welfare, but reforming the system to avoid fraud (which is estimated at less than 2 percent of payouts) shouldn’t be a fiscal priority, and here’s why:

The United States currently spends $59 billion on traditional welfare, which might sound like a lot. However, the United States loses $150 billion to tax havens and $92 billion to corporate subsidies. In other words, our handouts to the wealthy far exceed our handouts to the poor. Personally, I’ve never been a fan of punching down. The focus on abuses by the poor while ignoring those by the rich is characteristic of the Reagan Realignment (which is the political tradition Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton come from as New Democrats).

Clinton is also hesitant to commit to expanding Social Security. This fits for someone who still holds the ’90s “welfare reform” as a success.

Minimum Wage:

Another policy initiative of Hillary’s I take issue with is her reluctance to support a gradual increase to $15 minimum wage. Instead she stays with $12. In defending her position and attacking those of her fellow Democrats, Hillary again echoes Republican arguments: it will cost jobs; it is too much too fast....

We need to fight for Democratic policies, otherwise why have 2 parties? The hundreds of million$ given to Clinton over the years have bought her, virtually guaranteeing she will never truly work on behalf of US Citizens, only US Corporations. Just like her husband did.

That's the "New Democrat" way. We also know now, that New Dems run left to get elected & are right in office.

Our country needs Democrats to BE Democrats.

[Hekate]

98. Yeah, they're called Republicans. This may shock you, but...

... a lot of so-called Independents are actually Republicans, because (wait for it) it is a catch-all phrase and not a political party with a platform of its own.

The "Independents" attracted to Sanders may or may not have ever registered Democratic because they think of themselves as Green or any of a number of things, but that does not mean they are even in the majority of those who call themselves Independents.

So I don't expect any party loyalty at all from a lot of Bernie supporters. None. They're not Democrats. All the hand-wringing about how the Democratic Party is in peril from Hillary is bogus, because too many of them will never vote for a Democratic candidate regardless of who it is. Well, unless it is Bernie, who is only temporarily a Democrat.

[jeff47]

122. Actually, the 40% unaffiliated are roughly split in half.

Last edited Mon Nov 30, 2015, 09:56 PM - Edit history (1)

Half of them are to the left of the median Republican. (And to the right of the Democrats)

The other half are to the left of the median Democrat.

So I don't expect any party loyalty at all from a lot of Bernie supporters. None. They're not Democrats. All the hand-wringing about how the Democratic Party is in peril from Hillary is bogus, because too many of them will never vote for a Democratic candidate regardless of who it is.

Then you have a very large problem to solve. 30% of the electorate are Democrats. You can't win elections with 30%. So your plan of insults and derision is probably not going to help bring these voters to the polls.

So what would you like to do instead, so that we actually win elections?

[Rebkeh]

99. Why buy the cow? Tired of my vote being taken for granted,

as if they aren't elected by the people. They don't listen to us because they don't have to. And they don't have to because we don't make them earn our votes. Nor do we follow through and keep them honest once they are in office.

Let's be honest here. Most times we vote against what we don't like instead of for what we do like, and then wonder why nothing changes. Lefties are ruled by fear just as much as the right. The definition of insanity? How does it go, again?

I'm not saying I won't vote for whoever wins but I sure as hell understand the millenials' reasons and support their decisions, whichever way they go.

And that they outnumber the rest of us - I'm glad for it. The future looks brighter because of them.

[seabeyond]

109. Why buy the cow? WTF? That makes absolutely no sense but to throw out a disgusting sexist slur.

[Rebkeh]

113. I guess I showed my age?

See this, please.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Why+buy+a+cow+when+you+can+get+milk+for+free%3F

[seabeyond]

118. Yes a sexist statement given to our girls. Getting sex? Why marry her.

It makes no sense politically. It is exclusively used on girls/women if they dare to have sex outside of marriage.

[Rebkeh]

133. Yes, so you get my intended meaning.

In this scenario, Hillary is not the cow, she is the farmer. Nothing sexist here.

It does make sense, you just apparently don't get it.

And Hillary definitely is taking progressives for granted - no two ways about it. She is playing us, or trying to. If the GOP was sane, she wouldn't have a chance. And because voters are too scared to step outside their comfort zones, she will get votes whether people want her or not.

Millenials don't have that comfort zone, so good on them for leading the way out of this neoliberal mess we are in. We need this.

[seabeyond]

137. Clinton is the top 15% most progressive in congress. She has devoted a life to progressive

issues and accomplished a hell of a lot.

I can equally argue the sham of Sanders platform and how he is taking his supporters for a ride. Telling them what they want to hear, no plans worked up to do anything, further stating everything he is saying, can't get done.

Seems like a roller coaster ride to me.

[Rebkeh]

138. That she's in the top 15% says more

about the people she's held in comparison to because she is not progressive. Not really. Context matters and the so-called progressive party has gone right, not center. That magic middle is a figment of the imagination and it's time people woke up to that and stepped out of their comfort zone. Many millenials already have.

All that said, she has her good points but they are far outweighed by her bad ones.

She's good, she's not great. Tepid tap water is nothing to brag about.

Besides, during the primary, it's about principles, not policy and she's got nothing to offer. Nothing.

[seabeyond]

143. Facts really do not count in some argument. I can't do anything for that one.

[Rebkeh]

148. No, you can't

Because I am not making a factual claim, I'm talking about principles.

Why would she buy the cow, walk the talk, when she gets votes for free?

If you honestly like her, vote for her. But to disparage those who choose otherwise isn't right. She has to earn her way in.

[seabeyond]

149. "Because I am not making a factual claim" Trust me, I get that. I prefer to deal in facts.

[gollygee]

102. We can't lose the supreme court

I will vote for Sanders in the primary, but I will vote for whoever won't make a scary person like Scalia a supreme court justice in the general election.

[Jack Rabbit]

105. Being of the older persuasion, I'll probably vote for Mrs. Clinton

Giving her any time or money is out of the question, but I don't see anything wrong with voting for the lesser of two evils if there's a Plan B.

If the Sanders campaign is the start of a mass movement on left, then there is a Plan B. We can and should merge with other elements of the left with the purpose of undermining the [i\status quo of free trade, an unregulated and crooked financial industry, the curtailing of civil liberties militarized police and resource wars in the Middle East. The goal will be to castrate the oligarchy and establish stronger democracy than ever before. We will have no patience for the democracy is dysfunctional, that's why American is a republic meme. That may have made sense in 1787, when many of the founding fathers owned slaves and most of the others didn't challenge their right to own slaves, but today it is nothing more than an hollow slogan for a decaying aristocracy that is now fooling itself into think they can codify their right to own the planet and ride roughshod over the rest of us with a few free trade deals. To paraphrase one of their own criminal masterminds, a free trade deal is just a piece of paper. There is no reason for us to abide by laws passed by bought congressmen or signed into law by a bought president or reviewed by bought judges. These people have no moral right to govern us.

The very word aristocracy means rule by the best, but throughout history no class that ever claimed that mantle has anything more than a gaggle of corrupt, decadent sonsofbitches looking out for their own self interest at the expense of the common people. No aristocracy ever ended well for the aristocrats. The aristocracy of industrialists and financiers at the end of the age of fossil fuels will fare no better.

Rule by the best? Isn't that a hoot? The best who crashed the world economy, not just in 2008 but multiple times, started one war after another and polluted the entire planet making money on carbon emissions? If they're the best, then I'm a retired kamikaze pilot. I, for one, am convinced that workers on the factory floor in Detroit could design, build and market a better car than the dummies in the penthouse suites at Ford (Found On Road Dead) or GM (Gallons per Mile.

The only legitimate government is democracy. The safety, health and welfare the people as a whole are a government's only legitimate concern. We don't need to complicate the equation any longer by mistaking artificial persons, who are made out of legal documents, with real people who are made out of flesh and blood. The resources of the world belong to all of us. The bounty of the earth belong to all of us. The Earth itself belongs to all of us, every grain of land and drop in the seas and all that is on it and all that is under it and all that flies or blows or shines over it.

This is the new world order by our decree.

[Scruffy1]

106. I will never vote for Hillary.

I voted for every Democratic candidate since 1971 in local, state and federal elections, but enough is enough. I've campaigned with US senators, pounded doors in the precincts, rallied and transported voters. I was hoping for some real change in 2008, but it soon became apparent the Democratic party has lost its soul. I've had 8 years of the Clintons and 8 years of triangulation. Being slightly better than the idiots who they are running against is just not enough. Why the Republicans tried running the least backwards of candidates in order to get elected the Democratic Party has settled for the most backwards that can elected.
With the challenge of Global warming, and the world in a complete mess we don't have time for another 8 years of status quo that we got last time. The big time pols across the country decry low voter turnout. My Congressional district is arguably the best educated, most liberal in America and has the lowest voter turnout in the state. It's simple, you have to have a reason to vote. Analyzing the 2010 debacle it is clear that the Democratic Party blew it. The same number of Republicans showed up, but the Obama surge from 2008 was wasted on half assed health care reform, kissing banks ass, and continuing unjust wars. Trying to convince my friends to vote for Hillary is a lost cause here.
Voting is a personal choice and I certainly respect those who would vote for the lesser of two evils. Personally I think the party has just become part of Democracy, Inc. run by the big money corporations. I can no longer maintain the charade.

[seabeyond]

110. "106. I will never vote for Hillary." So what!

[MineralMan]

112. Yes. Most Republicans will not.

The real Democratic base will, though.

[jeff47]

124. The real Democratic base is 30% of the electorate. You don't win with 30%. (nt)

[GoneFishin]

123. You are correct. Many Democrats and nearly all Republicans will not vote for her. Fair or not,

she is a liability to the Democrats.

[NanceGreggs]

126. You wouldn't ...

... by any chance, have any stats to support your assertion, other than the anecdotal musings of a handful of people?

Just wonderin'.

[redstateblues]

129. There are plenty of independents that won't vote for

a Socialist.

[jeff47]

132. Independents make up 40% of the electorate.

Roughly half of them are to the left of the median Republican (and to the right of the Democrats)
Roughly half of them are to the left of the median Democrat.

The first group won't vote for "a Socialist", but you have to keep in mind they consider Clinton a socialist too.

We need the 2nd group, because only 30% of the electorate are Democrats, and we can't win with 30%. Clinton appears to have no plan to attract this group beyond "who else you gonna vote for?". Which didn't do so well in 2000, 2004, 2010 or 2014.

Her history is to "run to the center", which won't work when the voters she needs are currently to her left.

[Romulox]

135. Hillary's supporters are under the bizarre misapprehension that she only has to win the Primary.

[Nonhlanhla]

136. Why is it almost always Bernie supporters

who say they won't vote for the Democratic nominee?

I'm sure there are a few Hillary supporters who won't vote for Bernie, but you seldom hear stories like that.

Is this the way Bernie supporters think they are supporting him? I respect Bernie immensely, and I don't think for a minute that he would want his supporters to be so irresponsible with the lives of others that they are willing to let the likes of Ted Cruz win the presidency just because they did not get what they wanted.

Voting is not only a personal thing. It is in fact, far more, a social responsibility. Social responsibility, the idea that we are responsible for each other's well-being, and that we are not just in this for ourselves, is exactly what Bernie's vision is built on. Isn't it ironic that quite a few of his followers don't get that? They don't get it because they claim that their vote belongs to them and to them only, and the consequences of not voting for the more responsible choice in the general election be damned. How is that the reasoning of a progressive? It sounds more like the reasoning of a libertarian.

[Chef Eric]

139. It's because Clinton is to the right of Sanders.

So much to the right, in fact, that to some people she appears to be Republican-lite.

Of course, nobody sees any reason to vote for Republican-lite.

Yes, this "I will NEVER vote for Clinton" sentiment is a problem. However, the problem reflects more on Clinton than it does on any of the Sanders supporters who will never vote for her.

[Nonhlanhla]

156. I know she is somewhat to the right of Bernie

But she is not THAT far to his right. After all, they have voted the same 93% of the time. When it comes to gun control, she is to his LEFT. Anybody who thinks she is like the Republicans is not paying attention. Remember when Gore was no different from Bush? Yeah, right. The big difference between them was between someone who is responsible and someone who is bat$#!t crazy. That is true even more now, since there is not a single viable GOP candidate that is even remotely responsible.

What I find strange is that so many Bernie supporters make these libertarian-type comments about their vote belonging only to themselves. What utter nonsense.Your vote is a social responsibility. And THAT is part of Bernie's vision. If people actually saw their vote not in individualistic terms, but rather in terms of social responsibility, more people would vote and this country would be a much better place.

Call my view of voting socially democratic (or is that democratically socialist?)...

[jeff47]

177. Your metric only counts bills that actually made it to the floor.

That 93% is only things that reached the point of having a vote. It gives a false measure of how close they are.

Remember when Gore was no different from Bush? Yeah, right.

Then you better start working on a strategy to not end up like Gore, or at least be concerned that Clinton does not appear to be doing so. Democrats only make up 30% of the electorate. Clinton can't win with 30% of the vote.

What I find strange is that so many Bernie supporters make these libertarian-type comments about their vote belonging only to themselves. What utter nonsense.Your vote is a social responsibility. And THAT is part of Bernie's vision. If people actually saw their vote not in individualistic terms, but rather in terms of social responsibility, more people would vote and this country would be a much better place.

And when they view that "social responsibility" differently than you?

If you take the fast road to hell or the slow road to hell, you still end up in hell. Seeking a "Warm, purple space" as Clinton proposes is not going to reverse our path to hell. Only delay it a bit longer.

[Nonhlanhla]

200. Not when the Supreme Court is at stake

This nonsense about how we end up in the same place with a moderate Dem and a radical fascist Republican makes no sense. And it smacks of privilege. For the more vulnerable members of society, including women and people of color, the stakes could not be higher, and the difference between Hillary and any GOPer is clear. If anything, the mere fact alone that a GOP president would have to listen to the Tea Party, and Hillary would have to listen to Democratic constituents, makes it worth it to vote for her.

And I can't work on a strategy for Hillary to avoid Gore's fate. I don't work for her, and I don't have a horse in the primary anyway. I'm just shocked that so many Bernie supporters would say stuff like this.

[MeNMyVolt]

142. "Again, it is NOT something I would ever encourage."

Good song below. 0:05 - 0:06 applies here.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

144. I will (and have never) in my life supported a presidential candidate who makes blatant (or subtle)

racist statements and has never acknowledged or apologized. Same as her philandering husband and all of their associates, surrogates and fans.

I am a black woman. A very proud black woman.

I will never support people like the Clintons.

No thanks!

[get the red out]

153. Some

Some wouldn't support a candidate that wasn't their primary choice. Nothing new.

[Le Taz Hot]

159. That is exactly what I'm hearing from millennials

and a whole lot of others as well. There's that much dislike for Hillary and it's why she absolutely could lose the G.E. no matter how odious the Republican candidate might be. So, for the DNC and their puppet masters the .01%, it's NOT about winning the G.E., it's about getting a puppet in there they can control and Hillary is their gal on the Democratic Party side.

[Scuba]

162. In 2014, voter turnout was 36.4%. If Hillary is our 2016 nominee it will be higher, much higher ....

... on the Republican side.

[DCBob]

164. I think 2016 turnout will be similar to 2012.

Obama was an incumbent and the excitement had worn off but lots people still showed up to vote for him. The situation with Hillary seems very similar. She is like the incumbent. I am sure the turnout will be big enough for her to win.

[Scuba]

165. I predict that if she's our candidate, we'll get clobbered. The right will turn out to vote ...

... against her while she inspires few on the left.

[DCBob]

166. I disagree.

Once the general election gets into gear few will be able to ignore it. This is probably going to be the most intensive ugly campaign in history. The Republicans are considering this a do or die election, no matter who the Democrat nominee is. The ad spending will be huge and non-stop and vicious. They want to control this country and tear down most if not all things we hold dear as Democrats. I cannot imagine any real Democrat not being interested.

[Scuba]

167. The left will turn out to vote against the Republicans, true. It won't be enough.

And when Hillary loses, DWS and the other corpo-Dems will blame the left.

[DCBob]

168. I believe it will.

As I said I think it will be similar to 2012. Republicans hated Obama back then too and he didnt have the excitement of 2008 but he still won easily. When faced with the option, most Americans will go with a Democrat.

[Scuba]

169. Let's help Bernie win the primary, then we'll win the GE and have some coattails!

[jeff47]

179. "real" Democrats are 30% of the electorate.

You don't win with 30%.

Clinton and her supporters have a very large problem to solve if she wins the nomination, and they show utterly no understanding that the problem even exists.

[DCBob]

190. Hillary is very strong candidate for the general.

That's why the Republicans are trying everything to derail her. The fear her strength with women and minorities who are a reliable strong voting block. She will also capture many moderates and independents who think the GOP are a bunch of loons and dangerous. I think dont think you need to worry.. Hillary's got this.

[jeff47]

191. You're doing a great job of also not realizing a problem exists.

Democratic-leaning independents are not motivated by voting against Republicans. If they were, 2010 and 2014 would not have been such disasters. Heck, Obama wouldn't have lost half his popular vote margin between 2008 and 2012 if Democratic-leaning independents were motivated by voting against the Republicans.

You need something other than "Republicans bad!!" or we will lose.

[DCBob]

193. As I said in a previous post I think this election is going to be much like 2012.

Obama was the incumbent and had lost much of the excitement he had in 2008 but he still won easily. Hillary is much like the incumbent this year. Many see her as experienced and presidential already. Not as exciting as an insurgent candidate like Sanders or Trump, but still exciting enough to win.

[jeff47]

197. You mean when a popular incumbent lost half his margin of victory?

Way to aim high!!!

Not as exciting as an insurgent candidate like Sanders or Trump, but still exciting enough to win.

Now you just have to provide evidence of any such excitement, beyond a trivial number of party insiders.

And again, Democrats are 30% of the electorate. They can all be fucking thrilled to vote for Clinton and you still lose because it's only 30% of the vote. You need Democratic-leaning independents. How do you get them?

[DCBob]

199. He still won easily.

Hillary supporters are aiming to win and are confident she is a much stronger general election candidate than Bernie. Its hard to imagine a self described socialist like Bernie Sanders winning a national election in this country. Its pure fantasy.

[Major Hogwash]

172. I agree totally.

There isn't a major cottage industry out there hating Bernie Sanders like there is hating Hillary Clinton.
Hillary's unfavorability ratings are the highest of any candidate whoever ran as a Democrat in any Presidential campaign since Harry Truman.

If Hillary is the nominee, you can count on 35 states being placed in the column for the Republican candidate before the first vote is even cast.

[DCBob]

163. We will hope at that time Bernie will step up and help to convince those voters of their fallacy.

I suspect he will.

[randome]

171. Especially when we're told, in effect, that he can convince Congress to do his will.

Surely if he can do that, he can convince fence-sitters to vote for the Democratic candidate.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[postatomic]

174. So says the millennial from East Hampton

This is the same shit he pulled in 2012 when MoVeON tried to "primary" Obama. Being a cartoonist he is really good at making signs on poster board.

[JEB]

175. I'd vote for a dog turn over Ted Cruz

and probably will have to.

[merrily]

176. This is indisputable, Cheese Sandwich. Thing is, how many?

Some saner Republicans many well vote Democratic, no matter who the nominee is, because the right is being so crazy and vile. IMO, most Republicans, though, would vote against Hillary, even if they don't their own candidate. Indies? Some same. Some rw Democrats may vote Republican, just because some always do. Some left wingers will avoid Hillary and/or the Democratic as well, whether they vote only down ticket or stay home or vote third party.

The story is in the exact numbers--and not only in the exact numbers, but in the exact numbers in certain purple counties. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12778561

[pinebox]

178. JeffCo Colorado is my county

And this county is solidly for Bernie XD
Thought you'd like to know that.

[merrily]

180. I love knowing that. Mine is Suffolk County Massachusetts, which will

probably go for Hillary, as it did in 2008, when she beat Obama her. I was sad about it then and I expect to be sad again on Super Tuesday. Luckily, the rest of the country voted better and smarter. But, we are a blue county, not a purple one, so we never sway the general.

[Sheepshank]

182. Did you know that 68% of your posts are anti Hillary?

boy do you put a lot of effort into helping the RW machine.

A mere 32% are not overt Hillary hate posts, and an even smaller portion of that 32% are pro Bernie. I guess Bernie doesn't have a lot ot offer after all.

[Cheese Sandwich]

194. Here's why

[Sheepshank]

198. disingenious....and a pethetic set of reasoning for not supporting your candidate. nt

[Cheese Sandwich]

205. https://www.google.com/#q=fallujah+depleted+uranium

Gift of Freedom ->

https://www.google.com/#q=fallujah+depleted+uranium

[MaggieD]

196. Well they won't be posting here

And that is enough for me. She will win whether the usual suspects pout at home or not. Or maybe they will give us a repeat of 2000 when they helped usher in Bush by voting for Nader.

Nothing to be done about folks like that. They cannot be reasoned with. They want to tyrannize the process even though they are an extreme minority. Reminds of the 40 teaparty fools in the house. If folks want to act like that, nothing can be done to stop them.

[Bleacher Creature]

206. Agreed.

Some may be genuinely invested in Sanders, and I expect them to come around - especially when Bernie himself undoubtedly speaks out on Clinton's behalf and endorses her.

Others are totally fringe voters. I saw one poster brag about not only voting for Nader in 2000 AND 2004, but also against Obama (at least once, if not both times). Those people are genuine lunatics and probably never belonged here in the first place.

And finally, I wouldn't be shocked if a few really are GOP plants trying to stir the pot a little.

[MaggieD]

207. Yep.

Ditto that.

[randome]

201. The question to pose, then, is this:

"Do you hate Clinton more than you love this country?"
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[earthside]

203. Some? Lots.

Hillary Clinton is not very popular ... she's been around forever!

I think most Americans are ready for some bold, progressive change -- Hillary offers only more of the same; worse yet, more conservative than Barack Obama. Sanders is different and refreshing; he will excite the voters needed for Democrats to win in 2016.

[moobu2]

213. I dont know anyone who would vote for Bernie Sanders.

He's such an egotistical phony. When Bernie concedes he'll give one of his catch phrase filled speeches supporting Hillary and most of how worshippers will vote for her.

[akbacchus_BC]

215. What are you thinking? Your country has only two parties! One will fuck the US

up and the world, the other one, the Democrats care about people and the world.

Shit, close your eyes and vote for Mrs. Clinton if she is the nominee, our PM will work with her to end the bombing in Syria. I just hope she has curbed her war mongering attitude. Gosh, a republican will take America backwards. Do you really want that shit again and the endless home grown terrorist attacks on planned parenthood that provide needed medical services to women! The republicans are not an option.

[akbacchus_BC]

216. If Mrs. Clinton is the nominee, do you really have a choice?

You have to vote for a Democrat, otherwise Trump will be your next President. Do you really want that?