The "I won't vote for Hillary" Issue

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

DU is an incredibly open forum; the best of its type anywhere. You can say just about anything here. I have about 30,000 DU posts over the years, and left quite voluntarily only because it was making me pissed off all the time. I returned only to express my incredulity that DU has become a free-fire zone for hatred of Democrats, driven in large part by the most obvious sort of recreational disruption by republican interlopers.

The Iraq War and the Bush reich in general have sharpened positions, quite properly encouraging absolutist positions. What has been obscured in the fray is that DU is primarily conceived as a vehicle to advance the election of Democratic candidates to office.

It is fine to bash in the context of a contested primary. It is fine to say, "Anyone who votes for Hillary in the primaries is a fucking NAZI!" It is fine to say, "Hillary wants to bomb Iran."

The only line that ought not be crossed on DU, the only primary tactic that is beyond the pale, is advocating the defeat of ANY Democratic nominee in the general election, or advocating actions conceived to diminish support for ANY Democratic nominee in a contest with a republican or independent.

It's an incredibly minimal standard.

[etherealtruth]

1. I hear you ...

... and agree wholeheartedly.

[TwilightZone]

2. Many posters choose to ignore that part of DU's stated intent.

They tend to stop at the "Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives" portion of the rules and gloss over the items related to getting Dems elected.

[Demeter]

3. Well, If I Were Convinced Hillary Was a Democrat, I Might Support Her

It is not enough to bear the name. There has to be some consistency--not only talking the talk (which she doesn't) but also walking the walk (which she hasn't). A DINO is not worthy of my regard.

[Cameron27]

4. I agree.

The primaries are always contentious, and everyone has a right to post their asinine opinions :+ , but anyone advocating the defeat of a Democrat in the general, loses my interest in anything they might have to say.

[saracat]

5. We do not have a nominee yet.Hillary is not the nominee. If some are

currently stating they have a problem voting for her in the GE, as I do, but I have said I woulf "try" no guarantees, They are still not supporting a member of the other party. I would never vote GOP or Green.But I think I have the right to write in another Democrat or not vote in that slot if my concionce will not let me do it. As a Dem party officer, even we are NOT madndated to vote in our oath .We are mandated to not support other than a Democrat as officials. I would never advocate the defeat of a Democrat, but I do not have to actively support one I think is a bad choice.After the Primary all badmothing STOPS, but private support of a candidate cannot be compelled and should not be translated into support for the other side including third party.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

11. Of course there's no compulsion... this is the internet. I doubt DU could force me to

change my socks, let alone compell how I think or who I vote for.

The only issue is advocating the general election defeat of a democrat on DU... not on the street-corner or in your head or in an op-ed in the New York Times, but on DU.

It's an amazingly narrow issue.

[keep_it_real]

6. Sounds like we have only two choices:

My party if right; my party if wrong.

[NoPasaran]

8. You got a problem with that?

[mitchtv]

13. More like

support Democrats. If you don't like it, what are you doing here
or:
I don't give a shit who you dislike, just don't work against our nominee

[saracat]

22. We don't have a nominee.

[mitchtv]

25. didn't mean to imply we had

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

14. No, you should support what is right. But DU takes a presumptive position on contests between

Dems and pugs.

The only dissent that is stiffled is dissent from the proposition that any of the Dem candidates are superior to any of the R candidates. That position might not always be right, but it's the organizing principle of DU.

That is a practical position, imposed to promote discourse, since absolutely open political forums invariably become battlegrounds for rabid partisans with no possibility of discussion.

It has always served this site very well in the past.

[smalll]

7. I'm a Hillary supporter, but I'd say what they're doing NOW should be allowed -

it looks childish, peevish or just crazy, but I'm willing to allow them their right to say that. When it becomes a real Issue is when Hillary becomes the presumptive nominee, which should be on Februrary 5th, or soon thereafter.

I think well of most DUers actually, and I think that the "I'll never vote for Hillary" people, most of them anyway, will eventually come around to supporting her over the Repub choice. They'll come around. Skinner et al may wisely even have to allow them to work out their trauma online here for a week or two once it becomes clear that Hillary is our nominee. We may even have to have a GD:Anger and Despair, GD: Congratulations and Gloating divison for a little while there. I don't want to lose them. We give them patience and forebearance, and they will reach the acceptance stage.

[Cameron27]

9. GD: Anger and Despair

Probably a not a bad idea. There still seems to be some leftover hostility from 04 that continues to bubble up in some posts.

[omega minimo]

10. you haven't addressed the issue

which is the title of your OP: "The "I won't vote for Hillary" Issue"


You haven't addressed or even acknowledged the issues that make people say that.

That would be worth discussing on DU.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

17. Half of the are really obvious disruptors from Free Republic and elsewhere

so that's ample explanation for some. Exploiting obvious divisions is the sine qua non of internet disruption.

The despairing progressives have their reasons. Some are excellent reasons. Reasons that would be highly relevant in a discussion of who should win the nomination.

But it is grotesque to encourage others to act in a way to promote republican victory should she be the nominee. Since she isn't the nominee, one might expect those folks to talk about why they will act to prevent her nomination, rather than seeking to demoralize people in advance, in casee she is nominated. In aid of what?

[omega minimo]

19. aye there's the rub

"But it is grotesque to encourage others to act in a way to promote republican victory should she be the nominee."

Telling people she IS the nominee already seems to do the same thing!!! :think:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

20. Agreed that the Clinton supporters are not without fault. Triumphalism is offensive... what's the

objective? Hurting people's feelings? It's silly.

Anyone who truly supports Clinton should take pains to be humble and concilliatory, just as humility would well befit the USA. When you're number one, why brag about it? Evryone already knows Clinton is in a good position.

[RiverStone]

12. 100% agree

I'm not a Hillary supporter and I'd far prefer someone else representing our Party - but if she's left standing after the Convention, then she has my vote.

Though ANY Dem will have my vote in the General.

Whatever anger folks feel toward HRC (mine included) it is slight in comparison to the horrendous damage another rethug Admin will do. No need to look farther then SCOTUS.

For those REFUSING to vote for "certain Dems in the General" I ask - How many more liberties do you want to lose - including a woman's right to chose? :think:

[depakid]

15. Well, a LOT of people aren't going to vote for Hillary

that's just a fact- and people have good reasons for it.

Doesn't much matter whether they're Dems, independents, Greens or people who just won't vote, because they don't see anyone to vote for. This affects progressive state and local candidates and issues too- many of which are more important to people than the crap that goes on in the executive.

Sticking one's head in the sand and ignoring this is rather foolish. It's also seems to me counterproductive to focus on the nominal D behind one's name, while ignoring policies that fly n the face of traditional Democratic values.

[BelgianMadCow]

24. Well spoken!

especially the "counterproductive"

[Bitwit1234]

16. You should not blame DU for all the stupid post blame the

individuals they just don't seem to have grown up yet. They don't read or listen to any thing unless it is something that is skewed in their candidates favor or to the negativity of the person who is kicking the hell out of their candidate.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

18. Not blaming DU. DU has decided to let the trend run, hoping that

tensions will exhaust themselves. That's a practical decision.

[madfloridian]

21. There was a post that told us to lower our expectations.

Lower and lower all the time.

When you just keep lowering, you soon hit rock bottom.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.