It's not a "threat" to say that a Hillary nom means people will leave the Party

[Truth2Tell]

Why do so many people consider it a “threat” to suggest that people will leave the party if HRC wins the nom - rather than simply an observation?

I haven't decided personally what I would do in such a case, so I really can't be accused of making a threat.

But I can make the undeniable observation that - like it or not - many people *will* leave the party if she's the candidate - and that will affect the election outcome. HRC supporters can scream and shout and hold their breath - they can accuse all the traitors of trollery or secret Republicanism. They can demand, goddammit, lock-step obedience to the all powerful party. None of that can change the very observable and forgone reality that an HRC nomination means a split party and a likely loss.

Just the facts of life.

[aquart]

1. So, you can reliably speak for...whom, exactly?

Your mom? Your neighborhood? The people you overheard on the bus yesterday? Who are you speaking for with such authority? And do they know they've delegated you to speak for them?

[Truth2Tell]

5. I don't speak for them

I have simply observed what they have said. And I believe them. Yes, people on the bus. And my friends. And my family. And people in my precinct when I doorbell. And people at rallies I attend. And people I email with. And people all over DU. And people all over the rest of the internets. It may not be double-digit percentage numbers - but it's enough to kill the party in a Presidential election, I'm pretty sure of that.

[aquart]

43. So every one of them is too stupid to understand about the Supreme Court

and the difference between Democratic and Republican appointments? Really. Is it something in the water in your area? You could have it checked if the Republicans hadn't slashed the funding.

[Skidmore]

74. Would it be obtuse to point out that regardless of who is nominated

for the court, if the Senate continues to play gentleman's club, anyone will be admitted. The time for the Dems to have made a difference in the past few years has really pointed out how unwilling they are to rock the boat. And I personally believe that Hillary is no liberal.

[Clark2008]

81. I didn't know there was pole dancing in the Senate!!!

Sorry - I always think of "strip club" when I hear "gentleman's club."

Carry on.

:hi:

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. I don't know anyone who supports Hillary

Don't kid yourself.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

22. I know people who support Hillary because of Bill...

But once I explain how Clinton didn't undo Cheney privatization of our military. Or, how he enacted the Iraqi Liberation Act of ‘98, laying the foundation for the mess we’re in today.

How he advised our democrats in the House and Senate to sign the Iraq Resolution.

I tell them how it was Clinton’s Telecommunications Act of 1996 which consolidated the number of major media companies from around 80 to 6. Which led to corporate cronies owning our news outlets.

And I remind them how it was Clinton who gave us NAFTA, which led to outsourcing our jobs overseas, which helped Hillary’s ex-employer Wal-mart big-time.

...Once people are informed they tend to look for another candidate.

[proud2BlibKansan]

27. And Clinton's sanctions against Iraq

killed more children than the war has.

[dflprincess]

38. I know a lot of people who look back at the Clinton presidency with longing - though at the time

they were not impressed by him. He only looks good after 6-1/2 years of Bush. I've only run across a couple of people supporting Senator Clinton - and pretty much because of Bill.

I have, however, run across a lot of people who say they won't bother to vote if she is the nominee. From what I read on this board, people all over the country are hearing this. I'm not convinced that people will cave in and vote for what they perceive as the lesser of two evils this time. I'm not sure I will and I've been a party hack since McGovern ran. I'm becoming more concerned that we'll not only lose the White House but the Senate and possibly the House if she's the nominee and too many Democrats stay home.

[aquart]

42. You've just insulted women. And all wives.

So Hillary is nothing but Bill Clinton in a dress? His hand puppet?

How incredibly sexist. Her administration will be nothing but Bill and more Bill? Hillary is nothing but Bill?

I've always suspected this was the source of her opposition. Now I know.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

68. aquart...relax ...I know it's hard to believe Clinton wasn’t the best president ever.

...We all seemed so happy back then. Compared to the knuckleheaded criminal we have in office now, Clinton was a saint -infidelity and all. ...But, as time goes by, you'd have to admit, Clinton didn’t veto some really harmful legislation.

[creeksneakers2]

61. The Iraqi Liberation Act

had nothing at all to do with the war today.

Neocons wanted Clinton to get involved and support Chalabi. The bill passed. Before much else happened, Clinton analyzed the position on the ground in Iraq and decided it was a bad idea to try anything. Clinton cut off the money to Chalabi too.

Saying Iraq today comes from Clinton is another bogus right wing talking point.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

64. "Right wing talking point"?... Did you read the Act?

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm

[creeksneakers2]

72. Yeah, I read it

The Neocons were pushing for a coup but Clinton sent an advisor to look at the situation in Iraq and decided against involvement. The whole thing died after that. It had nothing to do with any of Bush's decisions.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

77. How could legislation titled the "Iraqi Liberation Act" enacted by...

...a much respected democratic leader----calling for the removal of Saddam, NOT be used as a tool for our senators -when they were deciding about signing/or not signing the Iraq War Resolution?

[creeksneakers2]

87. The Iraqi Liberation Act

was never intended to be Congressional permission for a full invasion. It was never even brought up until things in Iraq started going badly and the wingers wanted to, as always, blame Bill Clinton.

[SOS]

84. The Iraq Liberation Act passed on 10/31/98

Six weeks later, on 12/16/98 Clinton began bombing Iraq.
Operation Desert Fox destroyed 97 targets in Iraq and killed at least 2,000 Iraqis (military and civilian).

"The operation included more than 600 sorties, including 300 night strike sorties, flown by more than 300 combat and support aircraft. Aircraft employed 600 pieces of air-dropped ordnance, 90 air-launched cruise missiles, and 325 TLAMs. (Tomahawk Land Attack Missle) "

Clinton did not "decide against involvement".

[creeksneakers2]

86. He decided against involvement in the Neocon coup n/t

[Perry Logan]

73. "Informed"? You cherrypicked a few things, ignoring Bill Clinton's superb record.

It's not a good sign when you find yourself using well-worn Republican tactics.

[Just-plain-Kathy]

80. “Cherry picking information”? Wasn’t that the talking point...

...of all the senators who didn’t read the IWR?

Sniffle...sniffle... ’We didn’t read the legislation that gave Bush the power to bring us to war...we just talked to past administrations---they said it was OK...really’ ...sniffle...sniffle

The mistakes I pointed out were BIG mistakes. Just the Telecommunication Act alone, should have us all mad at Clinton.

“Clinton’s Telecommunications Act of 1996....The Act was claimed to foster competition, but instead it led to historic industry consolidation, reducing the number of major media companies from around 80 in 1986, to 6 in 2005.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_...

It was Clinton who handed us billionaire/corporate-owned/propaganda media.

[aquart]

37. And they're all leaving the Democratic party?

NONE of them will vote for the Democratic candidate if that candidate is Hillary? You know that because...

[superkia]

63. Thats strange because I dont either?

The polls say shes way ahead but I just haven't met her supporters in my daily goings, its weird?

[HCE SuiGeneris]

2. I love omniscient threads...

[Perry Logan]

75. The anti-Hillarites are obviously very close to God.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[napi21]

4. You're allowed to have your own opinion. You didn't state how you would vote,

or even IF you would! That's democracy...vote how you wish.

But remember, Democracy is also the majority vote wins! You well may be unhappy with a President Hillary Clinton, but you're just going to have to live with it! Hell, I've been living...and suffering under...a President GW Bush for 6 1/2 years!!!!

[BlooInBloo]

6. And volcanoes will erupt! And the seas... ah my son, the seas will reclaim the land...

... which was theirs in aeons past! That, my sons, my daughters, prefaces nothing less than the ARMAGEDDON that will ensue if you blaspheme, and vote for Hilary Clinton.

[Hoof Hearted]

8. This post has all the subtlety of my ex-has-been

Who told me he wasn't sure what would really come of me if I left him and made my own life. It wasn't a threat, he said. Just the facts.

[aquart]

39. That's exactly how it sounds.

[AZBlue]

91. You're right. Verbally abusive, really.

On a brighter note, welcome to DU! :hi:

[Harper_is_Bush]

9. Its' a scumbag threat, and it hurts Democrats.

[Perry Logan]

76. Anti-Hillarites are the lowest.

[KingFlorez]

10. Most people aren't going to do anything that drastic

It's only a scant minority of people who would leave the Democratic Party over a Clinton nomination, it's not some massive number.

[Truth2Tell]

11. Maybe not leave the party as in

tear up their membership cards and never attend another meeting or vote for another Dem.

But leave in spirit for that brief and critical few moments in the voting booth when the siren song of some New Nader gets stuck in their heads.

[aquart]

44. Backtracking so soon?

And fantasizing about a "new Nader" when there isn't even a whisper of a third party on the horizon. How pathetic.

[Tesha]

25. That's an interesting gamble you're willing to take

when so many of us have made it clear that *ESSENTIALLY
EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE THAN CLINTON* would be acceptable
to us.

Tesha

[aquart]

45. And, if you are the majority of the party, Clinton will NOT be the candidate.

How is it that she's polling so very well, then?

[hfojvt]

52. uh, the M$M has all but declared her the nominee

and has directed a full frontal assault on Edwards, who has lost about ten points or more in the last two months.

[Tesha]

56. And name recognition.

And wishful thinking on behalf of DLC types.
And Republican monkey-wrenching of the polls.

Tesha

[Bitwit1234]

12. So are you going to say that about the other candidates?

It is such a shame that democrats have to resort to the "republican way" trying to get people to vote for their candidate. I thought the democratic party was about filth and slime but the more you read these post you see they aren't. Especially one of the candidates supporters. Wonder if that candidate knows just how much "republican sliming" for him they are doing. I don't think the candidate would approve or appreciate.

[Truth2Tell]

13. I haven't heard people saying this about

other candidates. :shrug:

And I certainly don't shill for any of them, even DK, whom I support at the moment.

[aquart]

49. Ah.

So if, say, DK were the candidate, Democrats would rush to the polls to vote for him...? Which, of course, they will do in the primary which will make him our candidate and relieve us all of the problem of Hillary?

[Truth2Tell]

54. I'm honest enough to admit

that DK can't win either. (edit to add: because of our current media climate, not because of DK) I support him because he brings a message to the campaign that none of the other candidates have the guts to bring. I expect that I will eventually hold my nose and support Edwards in the primary. At caucus time I will press hard for DK.

Do you have any other talking points besides accusing those who question Hillary's electability of being closet Republicans? May I suggest that you guys email over to your HQ and beg them for some more useful things to say? It might make the discussion around here a bit less repetitive.

[Old and In the Way]

14. I'm so sick of these type of threads.

If the majority of rank-and-file Democrats decide on Hillary...it's because the majority think she'll do a good job for them. Get over it. Why not make a positive case for your candidate instead of making unknowable observations that you know what people, other than yourself, will do come election time? You really have no idea what others will do in the voting booth. come 11/08. Or are you claiming to have THE math?

While Hillary is not my 1st, 2nd, or 3rd choice in the coming primary. I'll gladly support her in the GE....because change will only happen when we get control back of the Executive Office. We are in no position to piss away the Presidency and the Supreme Court because you happen to buy into the Republican framing of Ms. Clinton's evilness.

[Truth2Tell]

15. True, I really have no absolute idea

I'm just speculating based on my observations. This is a discussion board right?

As for why I would criticize Clinton rather than make positive observations about others? Maybe because I want to win and I don't think Hillary can win? I can and do sometimes make posts that compliment candidates.

And really, the point of my OP was to ask why people insist on referring to my observations as "threats." In that regard, I think the mindless Party Uber alles responses on this thread speak for themselves.

[BeHereNow]

17. You are correct- Clinton can/will not win

It is delusional to think she could.
But then that is what the neocons are counting on.
A Clinton nomination assures further corporate rule
by the corporate candidate already selected to be their new puppet.

I will not argue this point with any one-
book mark the thread and we can discuss
it after the election proves me right.

BHN

[Old and In the Way]

33. Your are entitled to your elitist opinion. Insult the Democratic voters who

are not nearly as smart as you are on your political observations.

[HughMoran]

93. I appreciate your level-headed arguments

I think we all know that folks are trying to "scare" us away from supporting HRC because (mostly) they think she will lose (or because of her moderate politics). Flaw in the argument for the anti-HRC folks is that she has very little support here in the first place. DU is NOT the place where minds need to be changed. Beating us over the head with anti-HRC and anti-BO posts serves no purpose except to annoy people. Like you, I will, of course, vote for HRC in the Presidential election if she wins the primary. Anybody contemplating anything else must want us to decend into a dictatorship just to make a point. :eyes:

[emilyg]

16. Now tell us your real agenda please.

[illinoisprogressive]

18. I do not threat. I am simply stating a fact. I am sick and tired of

my party being stupid. We have been nominating the same corporate, establishment unappealing candidate since 84. and we keep losing. If the party cannot learn after over 20 years of the same tired failures they keep making time and again then, I am done. I am tired of hoping and waiting for this party to quit thinking the same type of candidate can win when it is proven time and again they don't. And we keep shutting out the ones who could win.
Why should I stick around for another train wreck.
And if by some very slim chance she was to win, why would I want to stay in a party that knows it will be the same old same old and she will weaken our party like husband did with his DLC thinking. That is not what a democrat is.
That is not my democratic party and I am sick and tired of waiting for it to finally learn and become real democrats again.
forget it. I am too old and too fed up.
I will gladly support anyone but Hillary

[BeHereNow]

19. Amen. Enough of the corporates.

I am with you.
I will stay home or vote for an independent
before I will vote for more corporate dynasty rule.
Integrity may be all we have left as party
members at this point.
BHN

[DearAbby]

20. I will vote...

But I am with you, I will write in a name of the person I feel is best suited for the job, and hillary isnt it. She is smart and very capible for the job. I just dont like her politics.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

29. Corporate control of the Democratic Party is becoming much more pervasive, so Hillary is only the

straw that breaks the donkey's back. I have voted Democratic from JFK to JFK but the day Hillary buys the nomination is the day I become registered as an independent. That ain't a threat that is a promise.

[hogwyld]

65. We'll never be able to outRepublican the Republicans

Enough of the corporate controlled hacks we keep nominating. Hopefully, we will, as a party, choose to be bold in our nominating process. Sure, Hillary is a smart woman, but I'm so sick of the triangulation of politics, and would welcome someone with real convictions, as a breath of fresh air that would reinvigorate our party back to it's progressive and populist roots.

[AdHocSolver]

21. The problem is not that Democrats won't vote for Clinton, but that no one else will.

Without a significant number of Republicans and "independents" voting for the Democratic candidate, the Democrat won't win. Clinton would likely serve as a lightning rod of opposition from right-wingers, and many conservatives will just sit out the election, rather than vote for her. Party "wisdom" decided Kerry was the most "electable", and we all know how that turned out.

In such a probable scenario, the election will be very close, and the Republicans can steal it like they did in 2000 and 2004. While I like Obama, the Republicans will attack him on many nasty fronts, and sorry to say, the latent bigotry in this country would probably be a significant factor in the election.

I believe that the best candidate we can field in order to win the election in 2008 is John Edwards. If we can't win in 2008, with all of the hostility and disappointment with Bush/Cheney and the Republicans, then there will be no way to undo the damage done these past 6-plus years, and the Democratic party will not recover.

The Republicans have painted the Democratic Party as ineffectual and incapable of getting anything done, and if they succeed to hold on to the Presidency, they will cite that as "proof" of their claims about Democrats. Those of us who want to continue the fight against the right wing will have to find a new group to work with to try to win the country back to democracy.

If the party "selects" Clinton to be the nominee, it is very likely the Republican will "win", and then people will give up on the party. In that sense, Truth2Tell is correct in this prediction. People won't leave just because Hillary is nominated, but because she would probably lose.

[BeHereNow]

35. Bingo n/t

bhn

[aquart]

46. 72 million Dems, 55 million Reps, 42 million Inds.

If we show up and take only one-third of the independents, WE WIN. You really think two-thirds of the independents will vote Republican? Really?

Years of malicious, crappy reporting have left Americans with the erroneous belief that the parties are fifty-fifty, evenly divided. T'aint so.

THERE ARE MORE OF US. LOTS MORE OF US.

[aquart]

47. Wait. Isn't the premise of this thread that DEMS won't vote for her?

Golly, can't you keep your story straight? Now the Dems WILL vote for the Democratic candidate even if it's Hillary? Jeepers.

[Truth2Tell]

57. can't you keep your story straight?

He's not the OP. He's actually disagreeing with me, or at least elaborating. Can't you keep your posters staight?

[Larkspur]

23. I won't leave the Party if Hillary is the nominee

the Party is bigger than Hillary and we need to remind her about that.

[karynnj]

53. I won't either it is OUR party too

what I will do is what I failed to do in the 1990s. I will keep my eyes open and not trust that there is less reason to watch when a Democrat is President.

[The River]

24. I Will Go Vote

to get rid of our local Rep (repuglican) Virgil Goode
but will not cast a vote in the Presidential
race if HRC is the nominee.

Given her record I don't see how any progressive Dem
could vote for her. Must be some sort of mommy figure fixation?

[NoPasaran]

26. You're right, it's not a "threat"

More like a tantrum.

[sampsonblk]

28. Which is worse? Caving in to Bush or nominating Hillary?

If they didn't leave when Reid and Pelosi joined in with Bush to fund the war, then they aren't going to leave now. Because that was really the most extreme betrayal we could have suffered at the hands of our party.

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. That's a tough one

Caving in to bush is an extreme betrayal. Nominating Hillary is not what is good for the country. I call a draw; both are equally bad.

[Truth2Tell]

59. True, but

I doubt many of the folks threatening to leave would vote for Reid or Pelosi at this point either.

[sampsonblk]

71. You have a point

I know I would try my best to find an alternative if I were in a position to vote for either of them.

[UTUSN]

31. & any form of undermining of whoever the Dem nominee is, is a vote for the Rethug n/t

[IndianaJones]

32. Its not a threat...that implies some sort of damage will be done...its simply a whine. nt.

[WI_DEM]

34. I doubt there will be a wide spread exodus from the party

most rank and file dems will stay. People who flirt with the Greens might be tempted just as they were in 2000.

[Truth2Tell]

36. Right

just like they were in 2000. And that worked out really well for everyone.

[aquart]

50. Yeah, some people do not learn from experience.

[Truth2Tell]

55. That's exactly my point

I think you should pay attention. I'm not threatening to leave. I'm pointing out to you that others will. You can suggest that they "learn from experience" all you like - but it's not going to change anything. Nominate Clinton and we get the same outcome as 2000. So maybe we should learn *that* from experience and not do it!

[spanone]

40. if this dem congress doesn't step up, i may be gone long before the noms

[aquart]

51. Yeah, because supporting the Republicans will help you.

And that's what abandoning the Democratic party, which is what they want, would do. Since, numerically, they can't touch us. But they can send their little trolls to whittle us down.

[Beelzebud]

78. Which is why we need a viable 3rd party...

It's funny how some of you see the options.

[rinsd]

41. Its not only a threat. Its an empty threat.

Much like people moving out of the country if Bush was elected again.

"They can demand, goddammit, lock-step obedience to the all powerful party."

Yes asking a Democrat to vote for the Democratic nominee is like Nazi Germany all over again.

:eyes:

[hfojvt]

48. it does not have to be a party split

It would be interesting to have stats, but probably impossible. What percentage of registered Democrats vote for the Democratic candidate? I admit to that myself, that I have voted for third parties and even (gasp!) Republicans while remaining a registered Democrat. It's an election. You don't have to leave the party to vote against our candidate and you don't have to join the party to vote for our candidate.

[Truth2Tell]

58. Exactly.

Maybe I should've been more clear in my OP. "Leaving the Party," or "splitting the party" can take place momentarily in the voting booth and that's all it takes to have an impact.

It's my humble opinion that Hillary can't win a general election. It's amazing the rancor this personal observation generates. Sheesh.

[MrSlayer]

60. I won't leave the party but I will be very disappointed.

I will very reluctantly vote for her because all of the Republicans are even worse. I am also of the mind that having her as the nominee turns what should be a sure win into a close loss. Or at the very least makes it close enough to steal which amounts to the same. It's madness to put her in there. I would like the opportunity to vote for someone for a change.

[MonkeyFunk]

62. Every four years

people threaten to leave if their candidate doesn't get the nod.

Good fucking riddance, I say. We don't need whiny crybabies in the party.

But in fact, they don't leave. The same whiners that here today will be here 4 years from now STILL complaining that their candidate (probably Kucinich) isn't getting more media attention.

[Truth2Tell]

66. And because we nominated some

corporatist sell-out this time, it will be President Thompson we are trying to unseat then. And the media will be holding a coronation for Ben Nelson or some such wanker to fall on the sword yet again. Wash, rinse repeat.

[MonkeyFunk]

82. Another recurring theme...

that if a Democratic candidate loses, it's because he didn't go far enough left.

That's absurd. you want candidates to give up 20% of the middle for 3% of the fringe.

[Truth2Tell]

85. The 50% of Americans who simply stay home

at election time do not constitute a "fringe." They constitute by far the largest available pool of potential voters.

The dynamic isn't "right" vs "left," as much as "sick of corporate owned" vs "drunk on the kool-aid."

Hillary is already to the right of a majority of Americans, not just Democrats, on issues like health care and war. "20% of the middle" :rofl: - talk about absurd.

[MonkeyFunk]

88. You really think that the 50% of people who don't vote

do so because the candidates aren't left-wing enough for them?

[Truth2Tell]

89. That's not what I said

Not all the 50% - but a huge chunk - stay at home because they think the whole process is a waste of time, that the whole game is rigged and that all the politicians are bought and paid for. Nothing right-left about that. And in the case of the Republicans - and of the Clintons - they are correct.

[MonkeyFunk]

90. ok

you're not worth arguing with. Anybody who thinks the Clintons are equal to the Bushes are too far gone for discussion. Ciao.

[AtomicKitten]

67. I'm hoping people will consider a viable alternative.

I'm pulling for Obama because I am 100% convinced Kucinich cannot get the nod. Hillary needs be taken out in the primary. I hope people will consider a strategic primary vote to do just that.

I am afraid the vote may be split between the top three contenders and Hillary will win by default.

[rucky]

69. Maybe the late primaries will decide this one.

By the time they get to my state, I may consider some strategic voting, depending on the situation.

[AtomicKitten]

70. I'm in California and my primary vote means squat.

It's very frustrating to have no say in the process.

[maddezmom]

79. I agree, it's not a threat per se

IMO, most of them have already left the Democratic Party anyway.

[Larry Ogg]

83. Imagine if you will

A man on death row is given two choices, death by hanging or death by firing squad, as if one is better than the other.

I for one see what America is facing, and I really believe if Hillary or another republican wins, our inevitable fate will be sealed. We don’t have a hundred years to turn this country around.

Today we have a choice between allowing Americas Democracy to live or die, but if the corporately owned media, with the consent of the DLC, is able to convince the majority of democrats to nominate Hillary, the presidential elections will only decide the executioner of our democracy, and it won’t mater if Hillary or Rudy wins, Democracy will lose.

If the DLC wants a Democrat in the White House they wouldn’t allow the corporately owned media to control the debates, and that’s exactly what they are doing, using the media to steel the elections long before the poles open.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

92. You're Right. If People Want To Be That Blindingly Stupid Who Can Stop Them?

The world always has and will continue to be inhabited by some really really stupid people. Try as we might, we can never stop them completely. So let the tantrum throwing moronic narrow minded childish cry babies leave. Pretty hard getting through to people like that anyway.

[Truth2Tell]

94. People are often stupid, quite true

But you can't win elections without 'em.

And I can only assume that's what Rupert Murdoch is banking on.