General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA question for HRC supporters ...
Will you NOT vote for the Democratic candidate in 2016 if that candidate turns out to be someone other than Hillary?
We've all seen the "I won't vote for HRC if she's the nominee" posts. Are there any Hill supporters who plan to NOT vote for whoever the Dem candidate winds up being, even if he/she was not their first choice?
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)hlthe2b
(102,562 posts)Arkansas Granny
(31,543 posts)After the 2008 primaries, it was like a witch hunt around here with accusations of PUMA being leveled at many posters who were judged as not showing the proper enthusiasm for the Obama candidacy. It was pretty ugly.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)FarPoint
(12,486 posts)That PUMA phase was a fair game in the Primaries....we all sucked it up and voted for Obama.
patricia92243
(12,607 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)basically, what the anti-Hillary posters at DU are saying right now. If Hillary is the nominee, party unity my ass, they ain't voting for her.
Sid
BainsBane
(53,137 posts)I couldn't figure it out because it made no sense in the context of this current election cycle. Thanks for explaining it.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)basically, what the anti-Hillary posters at DU are saying right now. If Hillary is the nominee, party unity my ass, they ain't voting for her.
Sid
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)support the nominee if it's someone other than Hillary.
And the PUMA stuff in 2008? Let's just say I saw more Republicans and trolls saying that back then than actual Democrats.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)What is happening now happened in 2008. Many of the HRC supporters are becoming obnoxiously agitated, demanding loyalty oaths, and working themselves into a blather. With any serious competition, the Hillary campaign is guaranteed to do/say whatever it takes including some unsavory tactics like before, adding further fuel to the fire and further agitating supporters. The campaign will degenerate into a food fight and if/when Hillary loses the primary, there is little doubt those emotionally invested at that level will revert to what Chris Hayes calls the demi-glace of crazy bitter.
Or she runs unopposed and those Democrats shut out of the process vis a vis no candidate their conscience allows them to vote for will either vote third party or write-in a candidate for president and vote D down ballot or, worse, stay home. I do not believe Hillary can win the general election. If it is Hillary against Jeb Bush, Bush will come across as the reasonable one simply by virtue of demeanor.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)PosterChild
(1,307 posts)I searched for it and didn't find a meaning that seems to fit the context.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)R B Garr
(17,019 posts)because of your "conscience."
Just this morning I heard some pundits lamenting Hillary's baggage about the past, yet there was little mention of the Bush baggage. It's hard to believe Democrats would rather see another Bush in the White House.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)thanks for playing, though
R B Garr
(17,019 posts)no candidate their conscience allows them to vote for will either vote third party or write-in a candidate for president.."
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 19, 2015, 05:09 PM - Edit history (1)
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)You don't have someone else to run.
R B Garr
(17,019 posts)comment about Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush and not voting because of your "conscience" about Hillary. That doesn't really make sense if the alternative is another Bush in the White House. That's what I was talking about.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)R B Garr
(17,019 posts)no candidate their conscience allows them to vote for will either vote third party or write-in a candidate for president..."
onehandle
(51,122 posts)And this is only in little online forums. I hear none of this angst from liberal friends I have in the real world who have doubts about Hillary.
You're projecting.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)I was amazed at how all my co-workers posted support for her on the day she launched... she's got some major backing, except on DU.
brooklynite
(95,009 posts)...not everyone chooses to step into candidate flame wars, and the "I'll never vote for Hillary" chest-thumping is probably a handful of the assembled.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Hillary is not the sure thing some people believe her to be.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Reasonable question.
MADem
(135,425 posts)They can't help themselves....!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Plez see post #55 below:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6533479
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)those Democrats that betrayed the Party and country. Why choose her when she has so many of her own party so set against her. If you will support any Democratic nominee, then why not pick one that has the backing of most of the Party?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the back again. If you want to risk a loss to Bush, that's up to you.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)But if HRC wins the nomination I hope everyone here votes for her. If they don't that is their right but they can't advicate for third party candidate here on DU after it is clear age hss won.
And for the record if o'Malley won I would vote for him.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)You know she has problems from the Left.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Too unkown and we have no idea if he can handle the media scrutiny.
.
the left will vote for Hillary.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)She will have to prove she can do it. I think she can.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,257 posts)Ariel Edwards-Levy
Posted: 04/13/2015 6:27 pm EDT
WASHINGTON -- Democrats are largely happy to have Hillary Clinton as their all-but-anointed frontrunner, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll conducted Friday through Sunday.
A 57 percent majority of Democrats and independents who lean towards the Democratic Party say Clinton, who announced her candidacy on Sunday, is their preferred 2016 nominee, while just a quarter would rather rally behind someone else. And most expect her to succeed -- 80 percent say it's at least somewhat likely that she'll win the Democratic nomination, and 77 percent think that she'll win the presidency.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/13/hillary-clinton-poll_n_7058088.html
"Why choose her when she has so many of her own party so set against her." Can you quantify this statement? If polling is to be believed, you're in a very serious minority.
NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)... HRC has "the backing of most of the Party".
So what's your point?
okasha
(11,573 posts)does not live on DU. "Most of the Party" has never heard of DU.
We do not need a candidate that pleases a fraction of a small group of internet posters. We need a candidate who can kick ass, win, drive the Republicans out of Washington, and begin to repair the damage they've done.
I do not support taking any Democratic or otherwise liberal Senator out of the Senate. They're needed right where they are.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)sided with the Republicons in 2002 in the most important decision of the century? She turned her back on us and helped, actually helped sell the Republicon lies. I want someone that I can trust to kick Republicon asses.
Remember 2000 when the Party decided to run Gore and Liarman? No kicking Republicon ass there. You are looking to do the same with another DLC'er in Clinton. It's time for a progressive.
NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)I asked a direct question which requires a simple yes-or-no answer.
I am rather startled by your obvious confusion.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)I have not made a decision for 2016 because:
1. It's nearly 19 fucking months until the election.
2. I don't know who the hell will be running. (And neither does anybody else here.)
3. I can't get excited about a candidate until I know more about the whole deal.
So, from my perspective, all these baiting posts just make DU suck more. Some people are acting like two year olds.
Hobo
(757 posts)Hobo
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)I will also do my best to make sure that the GOP does not pull a CREEPy Pat Buchanan/Nixon style 1972 steal by tricking our party into nominating someone who can not win the general.
okaawhatever
(9,479 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)They are not PUMAs.
The real problem is how to motivate the 70% who are only a little interested.
And once motivated, turn out to vote for the democrat and not the republican.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I have always voted Democratic and never third party for any office.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)Vote for and debate for whomever you want in the primaries.
In the general election, you are either a democrat or a republican/republican enabler.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)DURHAM D
(32,619 posts)I will not vote third party no matter who the Republicans manage to recruit.
PS I just discovered that John Anderson is still alive.
Arkansas Granny
(31,543 posts)I switched my support because I knew from the start that I would vote for the Democratic nominee.
I support Hillary in the upcoming election. However, should if she is not nominated, I will support the Democratic nominee.
The thought of Republicans controlling the White House and both houses of Congress sends a cold chill down my spine.
Response to NanceGreggs (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
DURHAM D
(32,619 posts)Paulites
Libertarians
Anarchists
Tea Baggers
Trolls
They are not Democrats. After the primary is over they will return to their usual spots or just stick around and tell us women folk how to think/behave/vote. No idea what we will do without them.
They will continue to bash Obama.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... of Obama over issues like the TPP, drone strikes, domestic spying, etc.
If we criticize him over legitimate issues that he's sacrificing Democratic Party values in doing so, we get lumped in with the Republican bashers calling him a socialist and fascist in the same stupid poster they hold at their rallies.
It's hard to then have those criticisms heard, because they get dismissed along with the real crap of bashing that legitimately gets dismissed.
Republicans have succeeded in that strategy of obscuring the corporatist mission of screwing over the rest of us with corporatist agendas that they've gotten Obama to support, but which gets defended by some who don't look at the details because they are just trying to "protect the president" from Republican crap.
Not sure why Obama is going down these paths that should be criticized, but aren't sufficiently, but I'm concerned that this kind of "Third Way" agenda that he's working on will also be done by the next president, unless we make sure we nominate someone with true populist loyalties, and not professed ones that aren't truly held. Because we'll see a repeat of this sort of thing happening in a future administration as well, when anyone legitimately trying to criticize Hillary Clinton as president will be lumped together with Rush Limbaugh crazies holding "Hillary is a feminazi" signs then.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)IS "bashing" Obama.
They refer to themselves as "Democrats."
treestar
(82,383 posts)in that it is only the unit-Hillary camp that makes that threat.
cali
(114,904 posts)She will almost surely be the nominee.
But I remember 2008 and a boatload of her supporters, including quite a few here, saying they wouldn't vote vote for anyone but Clinton.
PUMA ring a bell?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Do you doubt our word?
TheKentuckian
(25,035 posts)will scurry along if they actually had to bite the bullet and go against their corporate, warmongering, surrvilence state enabling mess they have foisted on the party and the nation for years was under any actual threat.
Even when just pressed with a different face for the same policies some went apocalyptic, if presented with an opposing ideology the conservatives would do what they have done which is vote for Reagan, the Bush's, or the Republicans.
Certainty, they have won and will continue to set the agenda is the source of their party loyalty and little else but disdain for their theocratic and bigoted ideological cousins.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,035 posts)the Turd Way, no I don't believe them and have no reason to.
Some of the individuals? Certainly, but the legion? Fuck no. If they were worthy of such trust they would not have fostered the distortions for decades in the first place otherwise.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Take care of yourself.
NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)... not 2008.
If you have seen any HRC supporter here claiming that they won't vote for the (D) candidate unless it is Hillary, please feel free to post the links thereto.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Link is to a thread where DU'ers declared they cannot/will not vote for Obama. Some have been tombstoned, some have changed their names and are still here.
NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)... we're discussing the 2016 election, not 2008 nor any other year.
If you have seen posts from HRC supporters stating that they will not vote (D) in next year's election unless Hillary is the candidate, please feel free to post links thereto.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Those declarations are scheduled to appear if/when Hillary loses the primary.
Of course, that would only happen if a viable candidate runs, specifically Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth would give Hillary a run for her money which is why Hillary has met with her privately soliciting an endorsement and wrote a glowing (reads butt-kissing) OP on Elizabeth Warren for Time Magazine. Elizabeth is obviously giving the Clinton campaign heartburn, justifiably so.
This puts the Clinton campaign between a rock and a hard place. If Elizabeth runs, it's on. If not, the coronation is guaranteed to come across as a lead balloon to those not enamored with the Clinton candidacy.
We shall see.
NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)... at a certain time, why were the "I won't for HRC no matter what" folks weighing-in before anyone even announced?
"Elizabeth is obviously giving the Clinton campaign heartburn, justifiably so."
I sincerely doubt that the Clinton campaign is suffering heartburn from someone who isn't even running.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)that the Unity Democratic Convention was a big success.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Remember rht Hillary supporters? While you bemoan criticisms of Hillary now and even those who say they won't vote for her. Hillary once said that the republican nominee would be better than Obama.
Think about that.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)" boatload" of supporters who refused to support Obama.I distinctly remember most Hillary supporters accepting Obama as the nominee and supporting him throughout the Presidential election.
cali
(114,904 posts)I'm sure most of them voted for him, just as most here who oppose her will vote for her.
Call it the rhetoric of frustration, but yeah, many HRC supporters here at DU engaged in strong language against Obama.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)But by the time the Convention rolled around I was a supporter, and I enthusiastically voted for him on Election Day. So did most of Hillary's voters.
It's true that Obama didn't get 100% of the Democratic vote, but the same can be said of Mike Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry. Overall, he did very well among Democrats, both in turnout and in percentage of votes won.
I've warmed up to Obama considerably since then. I was thrilled when he nominated Sotomayer to the high court (and she has been spectacular IMO). By the time he got the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) passed I was a huge supporter of his.
I think the point to the OP is that it is most Hillary supporters would vote for Martin O'Malley or Elizabeth Warren if they were the Democratic nominee.
If Hillary is our candidate I hope that the party will coalesce around her. And if she is not, then I hope we will coalesce around whoever wins the nomination, just like we did in 2008.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)MineralMan
(146,351 posts)Not only that, I will work very hard to help elect that candidate. I expect it to be HRC, but if it's someone else, I'll devote all my efforts to help get that nominee elected.
I've not heard anyone say otherwise among those who currently support Clinton, and don't expect to.
I've heard lots of people say they won't vote for Clinton under any circumstances, though.
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)Clinton supporters have nothing at stake when they say "I will vote" for the Democratic nominee - because that nominee will most assuredly be Clinton. It would be interesting to see how they would actually behave if someone else won the nomination at the last minute. Would there be a new PUMA-esque movement?
But perhaps you're right: it may be easier for a Democrat to compromise to the left than to the right.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)It was a few disgruntled and deranged Hillary voters and a whole shitload of Rush dittoheads,he never made any secret of his encouragement to republicans to join the PUMA's and inflate their numbers. The vast,vast majority of people who voted for Hillary in the primaries,voted for Obama in the presidential election. The constant citing of PUMAs on DU is disingenuous at best.
murielm99
(30,785 posts)I made no secret of being a Hillary supporter over Obama. When Obama won the nomination, I went to work for him, putting my support for Hillary Clinton behind me.
There were a number of DUers who could not accept that. I remember people trying to mass alert on me, trying to get me banned, and accusing me of being a PUMA, when I did not even understand the term.
I had every right to be critical of Obama's campaign before he won. In real life, we activists discussed things and disagreed with much more grace and civility than anyone ever did on DU.
If Hillary wins the nomination, I will not treat people here the way I was treated. If there are problems, it will be up to the owners of this site and to the juries to sort things.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)That would be me. I have no personal stake in this. If HRC decided not to run and Al Gore stood up and said "Re-elect me!" I would jump on his bandwagon.
That said, it would be nice to finally add a woman to the line up of POTUS. Not required but a nice bonus.
NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)I'll be voting for the Democrat in 2016 no matter who it is. My preference is Hillary - but if it turns out to be someone else, they'll have my support and my vote.
calimary
(81,608 posts)I do happen to believe that, realistically and for the sake of practicality, HRC has the best shot at winning. Over anybody. And I think there's an unseen groundswell of American women who simply want to see a woman seated behind the Resolute Desk. I have already heard plenty of "it's OUR turn now." I've even heard it from GOP women. There seems to be this perception about wanting to be part of history next time if they think there'll be a next time. Especially if they weren't in on the most recent one because they went with mccain or wrongney four years later.
I think she's gonna be it. But I'm damned if I'M gonna sit home and pout and sulk because I didn't get MY candidate, if someone else winds up being our nominee - the way some people are threatening to do here. I'm voting "D." From the top all the way to the bottom. If it isn't Hillary Clinton, FINE. WHOEVER the Dem is, you better believe I'm THERE! I'm mainly invested in keeping the White House. And I'm sorry to have to say this, but I hear WAY too much of that kind of prediction coming mainly from the "I don't like Hillary" camp. FUCK THAT SHIT. Just FUCK THAT SHIT. They claim it's far more important to stay home and pout and sulk and ruin it for all the rest of us because doing so will lead directly to handing over the White House to the GOP. And to the pouters and sulkers I'd say - IS THAT WORTH IT????? Seriously??? Will you be happy THEN????? You've just gotta shit in the big punch bowl, 'eh? Yep, THAT'LL sure as hell show everybody!!!! You're just gonna luv-luv-luv the results.
JUST FUCKING FUCK THAT SHIT.
I vote for Supreme Court pickers. There won't be ANYONE from the other side who'll do a respectable job on that score. THAT you can take straight to the bank, right this very instant. We're liable to get two or three more scalias if we let that happen! I would hope the pouters and the sulkers would at least see a particle of wisdom in THAT. At least!
Sorry to be so hard-ass'd about it. But I'm really starting to get a just a wee bit sick of this shit. I swear sometimes it seems as though there are people here, who aren't even trolls, who are just TRYING to stir things up and rock the boat til it tips over. And then we ALL get to drown, 'eh, just so they could grandstand on some "principle"?
I'd humbly remind everybody - THIS IS POLITICS. "Principle" unfortunately has very little to do with it. You get in it to WIN. PERIOD. Then you can quibble about the details and the principles later. But, DAMMIT, first you have to WIN!!!
Stinks sometimes, but that's just how it is. Whether any of us likes it or not. And frankly, I don't have time to quibble about stuff when there's a BIG PICTURE that needs ALL of our attention.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Which ever Party wins 2016 chooses the S Court.
THAT is the biggest prize of all.
calimary
(81,608 posts)That ONE thing. That single thing is just so powerful and WILL strongly influence the next 20, 30, maybe 50 years. At least a generation or two. We've got three on there who aren't exactly spring chickens. Whether it's scalia or thomas or RBG, at least one of 'em is gonna give up the ghost one of these days and retire. At least one of 'em is gonna need to be replaced.
This is a Presidential Election year. Dems tend to come out to vote more. So THIS would also be the time to make as strong a showing as possible in the Senate. And farther down-ticket, too. If you can possibly bring yourself to do so, vote ALL "Ds". I have found over many years voting in many elections that some general themes tend to show themselves again and again. You CAN pretty much make generalities, a lot of the time. If you dig down deep enough, you'll see the GOP is reactionary or old-fashioned on multiple issues, where most of the people who see things differently and want to look ahead tend to wind up with the Dems. You'll notice the business interests that sponsor the "r's" versus those who support "D's". And look at what the organizations are who are lining up on each side. And the people. Are these a bunch of wish-you'd-go-away's from the last term run by the other party? Are too many of 'em from the Heritage Foundation or some such? Sometimes the research is easy. There are all kinds of "tells" that tip their hand and blow their cover and their attempted subterfuge. Look at who they hang out with or which names keep coming up on the same issues. When I looked down the list of PNACers and found Michael O'Hanlon's name on there - I was SHOCKED! During the run-up to the Iraq War (and during the war too), when you could barely find ANYBODY on the left getting any face time on TV. Except Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution, at the time the ONLY even mildly leftward-leaning organization out there, compared with an expanding collection of right/far-right outfits. And he's got a mark on his soul, with jeb bush and one of his foreign policy advisors - paul wolfowitz, and richard b. cheney and the kagans and the "Dark Prince" richard perle and the whole rotten stinking rest of those weasels, too. Election by election I've noticed that this is a common thread.
It would also be intriguing to study the governorships and state legislatures in various states while it's still early. Which one's on the brink of going red? Which one's on the brink of going blue? Which needs to be shorn up and by how much? Where do we have a shot at turning an "r" to a "D"? And for four-year terms that start or end in 2018 - it might be smart to start lining some things up ahead of time. Or at least studying and analyzing more closely.
And ANOTHER thing about this next one being 2016: It's a KEY election cycle. That will begin to set us up for the next Census. That always happens on a zero year. 1980. 1990. 2000. 2010. 2020. 2030... Which CON positions are six-year terms? That'd take us OVER the 0-year mark and there'd be a D in power when the Census is taken and Congressional districts are reapportioned to reflect changes in population that the Census will reveal. YOU DO NOT WANT THE GOP IN CHARGE ON THOSE YEARS!!!!!! Haven't we seen enough of that ridiculous snaky gerrymandering of districts? They look like what you have to trace in the sky while you're trying to spot the stars that will allow you to put constellations together. Ridiculously ridiculous!!! OUR team has to be in charge for the Census and the impact it has on Congressional districts. The GOP so far has very shrewdly stacked the deck.
Fortunately, SOME Dems have finally been shaken awake about this. Freakin' FINALLY!!!!!
http://dlcc.org/news/dlcc-launches-advantage-2020-key-success-next-round-redistricting-70-million-plus-effort
I just hope it's not too late.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)AMEN.
For Americans
KMOD
(7,906 posts)and I will work my fanny off for whoever that is to make sure they are elected.
This election is way too important. If republicans gain control of all three branches, they absolutely will take away progress made on insuring many so they can have decent healthcare, they will strip away LGBT rights, women's rights, civil rights, and destroy any environmental advances we have made. I'm also confident that they will take us to war.
So yeah, I'm voting for the Democratic nominee this year.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But I certainly, plan to vote for whomever is the Democratic nominee ... even if that nominee is Webb.
(But, I must say, if Webb is the Democratic nominee, my vote will be for the benefit of the rest of America ... as I will be moving me and my family outside of the US.)
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)R B Garr
(17,019 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)MANative
(4,113 posts)support the party's nominee, even if he or she is not my first choice. I'm not a mindless robot willing to hand the Presidency to the Gop because I didn't get my way.
FFS
BainsBane
(53,137 posts)but I will wait for the campaign to unfold before making a final decision on whom to caucus for. One thing I know for certain, I will be voting for the Democratic nominee. In 2004, Kerry was last on my list of preferences, but I not only voted for him but organized GOTV efforts in four precincts.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)There have been a very few DUers who have said (some repeatedly) they would nt vote for Hillary.
Your question should be "are there any democrats that you, as Hillary supporters, would not vote for should they be the nominee?"
That is a slightly different question than the OP. There are some who will not vote for Hillary. That is not because she is not their first choice, but because she is Hillary Clinton.
The answers may be the same, but maybe not.
NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)... "I will vote for the Democrat in 2016 whether it's HRC or not," that answers your question.
Thus far, I haven't seen anyone responding, "I'll vote for the (D), unless it's _______."
morningfog
(18,115 posts)not vote for unless and until s/he has significantly disrupted Hillary's march to victory.
If the primary turns into a fight anything close to 2008, which is still possible, I fully expect to see some Hillary supporters spit at unity and Democratic Party loyalty.
NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)... you keep telling yourself that, hon.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)I expect Hillary to be the nominee, so the current Hillary supporters will not likely be placed in that oh so unpleasant situation they were in 7 years ago.
But, if they do find themselves there again, I would not expect them to act any differently.
NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)... that HRC supporters, then and now, are not a monolithic "they" who act in unison, or even support Hillary for the same reasons.
In fact, what "they" did seven years ago was, in the vast majority, rally around Obama and support the Dem nominee. Their disappointment at Hill not being the candidate did not deter them from ensuring that the (D) beat the (R) in the race to the WH.
The fact that you didn't know that, along with the fact that you think of all HRC supporters as "they" and "them" - i.e. a group that thinks with one mind and conduct themselves accordingly - makes it clear that you are either politically naive or incredibly - well, let's leave it at naive, shall we?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Post 216, I am clam early speaking of "some." The rest follows from there.
But, please continue to be patronizing and personally insulting. It is easier than discussing the point at hand.
MADem
(135,425 posts)car!
As I've said so often, Nance, the worst Dem is better than the best Republican.
The Supremes picks are too important to risk fits of pique.
MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)has been soiled by some bratty little agitators.
But, I will answer your question Nancy by saying, yes, I will vote for the Democratic nominee, whomever it is.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Why would some Democrats support a candidate that we all can't get behind? If most of the Party won't have a problem voting in the general for O'Malley, Chaffee, Sanders, Warren, etc., then why stick with H.Clinton?
If you were to learn that O'Malley could defeat Bush and Clinton can't, would you still nominate Clinton? If so, don't blame the Left for losing.
In 2002 many on the Left swore to never support those Democrats that stabbed us in the back and joined Bush in the Iraq invasion. Clinton proved there that she can not be trusted to support Democratic ideals. We can do better.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)our nominee whoever it is.
lamp_shade
(14,853 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)... the mayo-v-mustard crowd would take over DU.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)If Hillary does not win the nomination then surely the DNC nominee would be better than Hillary and no comparison to whatever falls out of the clown car.
winstars
(4,220 posts)Next question please?
I mean its called DU right. Not third party candidate.
The last 7 years of Repug craziness has got to make ANYONE with a half a brain vote for someone/ anyone who is not fucking certifiable like they are. Cruz, Paul, Huckabee, Bush, Walker, Rubio fucking Christie!!!
Clinton, Warren, Malley or Joe freaking Biden, all have my vote.
Here's one:
If God forbid, Joe Manchin was the nominee, would you sit out the election and let President Cruz win?
I wouldn't, I would even vote for that guy rather then waste my vote or not vote in "protest"...Without hesitation.... He would certainly suck but hopefully a little less than Rick Perry or BEN CARSON...
But thats just me.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)so if current Hillary supporters - who I would like to think would be open-minded enough to look at other candidates who enter the race but have been told by at least one that they are not - don't get their pick they will get a candidate to vote for who is more in line with Democratic Party values than Clinton, so it's still a win for them.
For those of us who want someone who readily embraces those values and speaks up for and fights for the people, it is a grand concession to have to vote for Hillary. Too much of a concession, frankly. We really do not want another moderate Republican president. One of those with a D after their name is enough. It's time for the party to shift back to where it used to be on the political spectrum, on the left.
To those who want to say that's wrong, then give us a better candidate. It's wrong to keep running moderate Republicans as Dems. Very wrong.
Andy823
(11,495 posts)I don't really know who is running yet, but I would think that those who claim they won't vote for her if she wins the nominee, would have someone else in mind. Warren isn't running, I hope Bernie runs so he can bring up the serious issues that need to be discussed, but I also think Bernie can't win. I a looking at O'Malley and want to hear more on how he views the issue that need to be discussed. I am not a Hillary supporter, but I will vote for her if she wins the nomination. There is no way we can take a chance of having any of the clowns running for the republican nomination win the WH, that would be a disaster for the entire country.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Otherwise, someone new. But I can't vote for someone who I think is detrimental to the well being of our country and our democracy. I have to look into O'Malley, don't know much about him at all. It's early though. Mostly I'm just sick of having Hillary considered the presumptive nominee and her supporters telling us that if we don't vote for her we want a Republican. The primary hasn't even started yet!
Fwiw, my individual vote won't make much of a difference as my state will go blue in the presidential even if I don't vote. But personally, I think it's wrong for anyone to state they'll vote for the nominee no matter who it is because then there's no incentive for TPTB to allow us to have anyone further left. It's like telling someone you'll stay with them even if they cheat, well, then guess what? The Dem Party needs to believe they will lost a lot of their support if they don't shift back to the left where they belong, otherwise why should they? But maybe they don't care.
William769
(55,150 posts)Otherwise is unthinkable!
ileus
(15,396 posts)beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)as I was with Obama would be in 2008...so the real question will be to all the anti-hillary so-called democrats and progressives whether or not they will support her or will allow some batshit crazy conservative take the whitehouse
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Hopefully its Hillary as she is the only democrat that can beat the teahaddist/fox/Koch bros lie machine.
All the other fantasy left candidates would get their clocks cleaned massively by the Republican ayatollah and America with a full rethug white house, congress and SCOTUS would die.
But if one of those walk on water fantasy candidates gets the nomination I will vote for them and go down with the ship.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)if it wasn't HRC I would never hear the end of it.
If I said I would never vote for Sanders, Warren, or O'Malley I would never hear the end of it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)I will happily vote for the Democratic nominee.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 19, 2015, 07:43 PM - Edit history (1)
repeating the bullying mantra that votes should be owed based on the letter after the name. A manipulative attempt to *shame* others based on this corporate perversion of what should define political loyalty. 'We would vote for your candidate based on the letter! You should vote for ours!"
This OP is a textbook example of Third Way propaganda that continues to try to pervert our fundamental understanding of democracy. To pervert the very meaning of the electoral process by pretending that it is the most natural thing in the world to detach political loyalties from policies and principles and attach it instead to team label.
This is what happens when corporations buy democracies. They try to make us forget the purpose of elections as civic exercise to find the candidate who best represents the people's needs. They try to turn it into vapid team sport instead, in which only the logo and the letter after the name matter.
No. The party must offer something worth voting FOR.
Simply having the D after the name does not mean a vote has been earned.
We have experienced a corporate coup in this nation. The current set of corporate policies - war, economic, police state - is not just less than optimal. It is predatory. It is impoverishing and murdering, dismantling democracy and replacing it with soulless corporate rule.
That's no exaggeration. Millions have been driven into poverty as a result of neoliberal and neocon policies. Our middle class is gone. We have scenes like this now in the United States of America, we lead among "developed" nations in child poverty, and all new wealth is being funnelled to the very top. Corporate Democrats have aggressively enabled all of it, just as they enable the draining of our treasury into the MIC for bloody wars of profit. This is the cancer of candidates who are corporate-owned.
CNN: Homeless encampments known as "tent cities" are popping up across the country.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/16/pf/tent-city/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6262949
We also live in a surveillance state now, and dissent is being crushed.
The agenda Hillary stands for and will continue promises even more of this vicious predation of the 99 percent by the one percent. Our nation can't afford it anymore.
It's more important than ever to remember why we have elections and political parties, and to reject craven corporate attempts to normalize the perversion of our elections into vapid team sport in which loyalty is demanded based on team color, without regard to political agendas that affect the welfare of countless human beings.
NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)So I'm not sure why you felt compelled to respond.
Your description of someone asking a specific question of a specific group on a message board as "manipulative Third Way propaganda" is a somewhat sad commentary on your own skewed thinking.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)this in the HRC group where only her supporters are welcome.
NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)... participate in the HRC group.
This is DemocraticUnderground - and last time I checked, those supporting a Democrat running for POTUS on the Democratic ticket are free to post in GD.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)You deliberately posted a provocative question in General Discussion, knowing that it would draw responses from other than your ostensible "target audience".
You knew damn well what was going to happen, you just wanted to stir the shit.
NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)Not all HRC supporters participate in the HRC Group. Just as not all Warren supporters participate in the Elizabeth Warren Group, not all Obama supporters participate in The BOG, not all Biden supporters participate in the Joe Biden Group, etc.
The "I won't vote for Hillary no matter what" posters have free rein in GD - are you suggesting that Hillary supporters should not have the same right to post here, but should be restricted to their own corner of the site?
If so, you can take that up with the Admins.
I see nothing "provocative" in asking HRC supporters how they feel about supporting a candidate other than Hillary. If my aim was to "stir the shit", my OP would have consisted of more than the simple question posed.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)and the manipulative message of the OP, that votes are owed based on party, is front and center in the corporate perversion of how Americans are taught to understand our fake "democracy."
The predatory agenda of oligarchy is not possible if Americans understand the duty of candidates to represent their interests. That's why so much time, energy, and money have been poured into perverting politics into vapid team sport, instead.
You've got to hand it to our .1 percent. They are nothing if not forward-thinking and creative. What can you do, when you dismantle a 240-year-old representative system of government from the inside and replace it with oligarchy and even nascent fascism? What do you do with the shell of that system? The elections? The parties?
We have a *corporate oligarchy* focused on profit, so the solution should not be surprising: Don't throw away the shell, the outward trappings, of democracy. Keep it, because it's USEFUL.
1. It's USEFUL because it sustains the illusion of democracy.
2. And it's USEFUL because it's PROFITABLE.
Hence what we have seen done to our democratic process. Our presidential elections have been turned from civic exercise into vapid entertainment. From exercise in democracy into an obscene, hyped, massively profitable corporate pageant, a sports event that, as the Princeton study showed, has virtually *nothing* to do with the actual direction of policy or of governance in this country anymore. It is the illusion of democracy, in which the people's voices have no real impact.
Princeton study: U.S. no longer an actual democracy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025405658
We have TWO Superbowls in this country now. Two major, vapid, nationally hyped and advertised sporting events in which the people are urged to take a side and mindlessly cheer for their side to win. And from which the media oligarchs, the political oligarchs, and the banking oligarchs profit BILLIONS.
And the oligarchs are buying up new private islands with the profits from it all.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)What a telling response. Thank you.
My vote, and the vote of anyone else on this board, is none of your business, of course. If, with that comment, you planned to go on to reference the TOS, you should recall that the TOS has to do with writing posts that advocate candidates other than the Democratic nominee. I, and many others here, are trying very hard right now to ensure that we do not have a corporate-purchased candidate with a predatory agenda forced down our throats and the country's throat as the Democratic nominee this time. That's because we care about the party and the nation and the millions being exploited and destroyed, and we want the monied corruption to end.
Part of doing that is pointing out the rhetorical manipulations that are used to normalize the corporate perversion of our electoral system and how Americans understand it.
Sometimes you need to reiterate that 2+2=4, and, in this case, 2+2=4 means that, in a democracy, a candidate has a responsibility to EARN votes. They are not owed based on team color, particularly to a candidate with a long and documented history of working against the people for corporate and MIC interests.
I think my point is pretty clear here, and I do not wish to respond to another attempt at deflection from the point or to kick this sort of OP again. So...you have a nice day.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)I asked you a reasonable question on a political website.
What is more telling is your response and it is what I expected.
I respect your passion but not your high horse attitude towards HRC supporters.
Bye and you won't have to worry about me responding to you anymore.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)After your response to my lengthy post was a mere snarky, "Is everything you disagree with corporate talking points?" followed by a demand to know who I'm voting for?
Also illustrative of the MO of corporate posting here. When there is no good response to difficult observations, divert to the personal or emotional...deliberately.
You have a nice day, justin.
NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)I posed a question specifically to HRC supporters. You are obviously NOT an HRC supporter, and yet you felt compelled (for whatever reason) to respond.
I can tell you that I hate cooking and loathe baking. And yet I have never felt compelled to post in the Cooking & Baking Group in order to tell everyone there that I don't share their enthusiasm for those pursuits.
So why you feel a need to shit in the punchbowl at a gathering which sought neither your attendance nor your opinion is anyone's guess. But you might want to consider your own compulsion to do so.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)What tripe.
Sid
leftstreet
(36,119 posts)!!
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Not only is it a photoshop but it's a photoshop from FrontPage magazine meant as an insult to Detroit.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/16/pf/tent-city/
I have no idea if your claim is true or not, because you didn't bother to back it up. I got the picture from a post on DU and assumed it was real.
Whether the pic is photoshopped or not (and I don't question that it could be, because camping by the homeless has been criminalized in so many parts of this country in order to feed the predatory private prison system that corporate Democrats are *also* growing and supporting...)...
Whether the pic turns out to be photoshopped or not does not change the fact that millions have been forced into poverty and homelessness as a result of the policy agenda aggressively defended by corporate Democrats as well as Republicans. Inequality continues to skyrocket, while corporate politicians like Hillary author predatory "trade" agreements and defend vicious Third Way "solutions" that have only escalated the inequality and pain.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026532461
http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/16/pf/tent-city/
Okay, really done kicking this thread now.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)to Detroit from a right wing magazine. If you right click "properties" on the pic it will show you the source of the picture and let me tell you as someone who has lived in the Detroit area for most of my life, there is no place in Detroit that looks like that. Jesus, you were wrong,just take down the picture and spare me the lecture.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Well I think David duke calls himself a Democrat sometimes, but I don't think he could win the primaries. Although some of the Obama critics make me wonder at times.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)SleeplessinSoCal
(9,192 posts)Can't see a third way working with so much money involved.
To answer the question, I will vote for the dem nominee. The GOP is a death cult. I can't ever imagine voting for them again.
If Sanders were to run as an independent, I'll vote for the candidate with the most support - likely Clinton. If she fades, I hope others will enter the race. Maybe Biden. Maybe Sanders. Whoever seems most likely to win over the middle ground.
R B Garr
(17,019 posts)the exit polls. That seemed to be solidly debunked many times over the years. Clinton won, and I don't see many Republicans lamenting Dubya Bush LOSING the popular vote and losing Florida only to be helped by the Supreme Court.
No one mentions Bush's ACTUAL illegitimacy, yet we go back years for some made up claim about Clinton squeaking in because of Ross Perot. This is the type of rhetoric that needs to be talked down before the Bushies start this again with Jeb. I don't know why Democratic leaders don't just start shutting these type of talking points down.
SleeplessinSoCal
(9,192 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 20, 2015, 02:08 AM - Edit history (1)
Why do you think they call him a political genius?
We don know for sure where the 19% of Perot votes might have wound up, but chances are a majority would have gone to Bush (and later to Dole).
The lesson is that many of Perot's voters would have stayed home. Clinton easily won the electoral college though 370 to 168, but it takes people voting to override WS money in Wahington.
DON'T NOT VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT IN 2016. Hopefully by election day we'll be excited to vote. That is my hope for the future.
R B Garr
(17,019 posts)I even heard Clinton himself talking about this, I think it was on the Charlie Rose show some years ago -- the exit polls showed that Perot drew basically even from both parties and that this was just a Republican talking point to delegitimize him like they do with every Democrat.
(3) A comprehensive national exit poll found that Perot voters were divided almost evenly on their second choice and that Clinton in a two-way race would still have beaten Bush by 5.8 million votes (his actual margin was 5.3 million in initial 92 tally).
http://race42016.com/2011/04/20/did-ross-perot-elect-bill-clinton/
Anyway, I agree with your other points, well said!
It just irks me that the Republicans have made it so that no one speaks about their actual ILLEGITIMATE president who was basically installed by the Supreme Court.
7962
(11,841 posts)I have no doubt Bush wouldve won re election with no Perot. Maybe not, but the only people I knew who voted for Perot were the pissed off "no new taxes" people. And he got a lot of votes where I lived at the time
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,485 posts)R B Garr
(17,019 posts)analysis have disproven this. This myth is basically a right-wing canard to delegitimize Clinton, which others here appear to like to engage in, as well.
http://www.salon.com/2011/04/04/third_party_myth_easterbrook/
"Ross Perots presence on the 1992 presidential ballot did not change the outcome of the election, according to an analysis of the second choices of Perot supporters.
The analysis, based on exit polls conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS) for the major news organizations, indicated that in Perots absence, only Ohio would have have shifted from the Clinton column to the Bush column. This would still have left Clinton with a healthy 349-to-189 majority in the electoral college.
And even in Ohio, the hypothetical Bush margin without Perot in the race was so small that given the normal margin of error in polls, the state still might have stuck with Clinton absent the Texas billionaire.
In most states, the second choices of Perot voters only reinforced the actual outcome. For example, California, New York, Illinois and Oregon went to Clinton by large margins, and Perot voters in those states strongly preferred Clinton to Bush.
Repeat after me: Ross Perot did not cost George H.W. Bush the 1992 election. If you see or hear a commentator using this claim as supporting evidence, immediately discount whatever argument that commentator is advancing. The poor economy doomed George H.W. Bush in 1992 not a short billionaire from Texas."
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)We MUST hold the White House.
While our house is not 100% in favor of HRC...can anyone seriously accept the Party of Puke and Bagger, controlling the White House, Senate and House?!?
Talk about America being terrorized.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)My partner and I do not think that she will win the White House. For whatever reasons, we feel there is more HRC burnout than even Village Idiot Bush burnout...when November arrives and push comes to shove, she will lose.
We want a different candidate that has a SERIOUS chance of winning the Presidentcy. As much as we like what they do and say, Sanders and Warrens cannot win. Possibly O'Malley? Or someone that pops up, male (sorry!), attractive, charismatic, with a common sense campaign...along the lines of how we felt when President Obama was running. We didn't even know who he was when he started his campaign.
Gamecock Lefty
(701 posts)If Hillary does not win the nomination, then I will be 100% for whomever does!
nolabear
(42,005 posts)And I'm exhausted by those who are apparently willing to throw me to the wolves if they don't get their way.
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)As difficult as that would be. Even he would be better than any GOP running on women's issues and that's pretty pathetic
busterbrown
(8,515 posts)To this question...
If Hillary is the Nominee and Dems. dont vote for her..
Prepare for a Teabagger White House, Senate, and House.
Very Frightening!!
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Thespian2
(2,741 posts)I can't answer your question because I have never supported HRC.
sheshe2
(84,072 posts)I have been leaning toward Hillary more and more. The reason? The ugly relentless bashing of her on DU. I would say that the final straw came when some childish poster thought it would be funny to post a picture of her as an aging crone, she now has my support.
However, no matter who wins, I will indeed be voting for the Democratic candidate.
NBachers
(17,191 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)sheshe2
(84,072 posts)I'll bet you that is not the response they were after. Backfired big time.
NBachers
(17,191 posts)And you know what? These complaints, most of 'em, have validity. But they're not advanced as discussion points. They're used as a cudgel to beat the Hillary supporters with.
This is April of 2015. Election day isn't until November 8th, 2016. We have a good chance of winning. Let's be enthusiastic and support each other. What's better- #Democratsstrong, or #Democratsfracturedandbroken?
Who benefits from #Democratsstrong?
Who benefits from #Democratsfracturedandbroken?
sheshe2
(84,072 posts)'cause we will all benefit from this.
stage left
(2,967 posts)Whoever that is.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)patricia92243
(12,607 posts)Cartoonist
(7,326 posts)Someone who claims that their conscience won't let them vote for Hillary but have no problem letting another Bush in the White House don't really have a conscience. At least not one that is admirable in any way.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)Pathwalker
(6,600 posts)n/t
BKH70041
(961 posts)If it's Lyndon LaRouche, or someone else I disapprove, then no.
rug
(82,333 posts)Cal33
(7,018 posts)and they are not interested in changing. Unfortunately, there are one-track minded people around.
They can't see any other danger - other than the one they already have in mind - because they don't
wish to.
Gothmog
(145,965 posts)We can not afford to lose the SCOTUS for entire generation
brooklynite
(95,009 posts)...whomever that it. No Hillary Clinton has said Sander (or Warren) shouldn't run if they want to.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)If that candidate isn't my choice and the American people choose the other candidate, I've had my say and I will vote for the winner.
I am, after all, a staunch Democrat. I don't much like being wishy-washy and I don't like fence-sitting, but above all else, I loathe to see another Republican ease his privileged behind into the White House.
chillfactor
(7,590 posts)no matter who it is.....do we REALLY want a Rethug president?
NBachers
(17,191 posts)I support Hillary.
I love Bernie. It would be a dream come true if he became president.
Warren would be great, but I believe she's best where she is. I'll vote for her if she's the candidate.
I've long liked and contributed to James Webb, even though I live on the other coast.
I know nothing about O'Malley, but I'll vote and send him money if he's the candidate.
I am a Democrat.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... but if it is another corporatist neocon DINO, the fucking answer is fucking NO,
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)sendero
(28,552 posts)..perhaps because her owners don't care about that shit. But for economics and business she is a FUCKING DINO.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Sometimes I feel like I am on fee republic or the conservative cave.
sendero
(28,552 posts).. I am in a land of fools. And actually, I am.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Well whatever.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... that the Clintons are OWNED by the banksters, well if the shoe fits. Welcome to ignore, you have nothing to contribute because you are too lazy to examine the facts.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Horseshit! Women are not slaves nor can they be owned!
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)"her owners"...
What goes on here?
BainsBane
(53,137 posts)or anti-business? When has that ever been the case? Looks to me like you've been taking GOP propaganda too seriously. The Democratic Party is not the Communist Party or the Socialist Workers Party. It has always supported the nation's biggest financial interests from its inception, when it served the interests of slaveholders. At the turn of the century it was industrialists and now it is finance. You live in a capitalist country, and the Democrats are part of the capitalist state.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)cry baby
(6,682 posts)Without hesitation.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)whatthehey
(3,660 posts)1) DU is rife with anti-Democratic self-defeating unreasoned hatred of HRC.
2) I could not give the slightest shit about nominees. I would crawl over broken glass to vote for Elizabeth Bathory (D) over Albert Schweitzer (R) or any other variant. I am so far from Yellow Dog that I would vote for the faeces of the flea on the yellow dog Democrat over a Republican saint waving a truckload of $100 bills for every voter, because utilitarianism tells me that's the right choice. Anyone who chooses otherwise hates the nation, pure and simple.
Team sport? Damn fucking right. Either the D or the R nominee will be the next president. 100% certainty. I know which I want. If you don't, frankly fuck off and die now.
oasis
(49,490 posts)I won't work for any amateurs.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)Really? Where? There must be an incredible number of said posts for you to have taken time out of your busy day to address the crisis.
Can you link to the plurality of Original Posts that express this sentiment?
Is it in the 100s? Or just 1 or 2 and dissent from the status quo confuses you?
Some numbers to indicate the gravity of the situation might make it look like this isn't just a poorly designed trolling exercise which ( clearly to me) it isn't. I'm sure there are some others who might be less certain.
Then again, if there are 100s of posts like this, perhaps the better question is, why is the Democratic Party running such a polarizing candidate?
If you'd like people to respond to the question, you can lead the way by answering it yourself as an example.
Will you be voting for the Democratic candidate in the general election if Clinton doesn't win?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)Really? Who has posted this as an OP?
Some people only get a chance to visit the site once or twice a week, so we may have missed the barrage of original posts that the OP says we've all seen.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Did you mean to respond to someone else.
NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)Where did I say it was an "incredible number"? Where did I say this was "a crisis"?
Why are you asking for links to "original posts" as opposed to "any posts", including replies?
"Is it in the 100s?" Did I say it was in the hundreds? The only person who has suggested that so far is you. And yet you continue your own meme: "Then again, if there are 100s of posts like this, perhaps the better question is, why is the Democratic Party running such a polarizing candidate?"
Again, no one suggested "100s of posts", other than you.
As for the Dem Party running "such a polarizing candidate", you might want to keep in mind that at this point in the proceedings, HRC already has support from the majority of the party.
I'll give you credit, though - it's quite a skill to erect that many strawmen in one post. Too bad you didn't see how vulnerable they all were before you decided to prop them up.
To answer your question, though: Yes, I will be voting for the (D) candidate in 2016 no matter who that candidate turns out to be.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)be enough for you to assume we've all seen them?
If it's one or two, I'm sure you'd agree that the assertion "we've all seen them..." is not rational since there are hundreds of various posts per day, thousands per week.
Your statement that "we've all seen them" requires scrutiny to determine there is sufficient quantity to support your assertion.
And if it is true that people are not happy with Clinton, to the point of not voting Democratic in the general election, why wouldn't that be a concern? You failed to explain that. But that's secondary issue I'm willing to let slide.
The main point is this:
Publishing the list of all these original posts claiming an unwillingness to vote for Clinton in the general would give authenticity to your original post. I think many people would be surprised to find that so many posts exist that "we've all seen them".
Otherwise, it could look like (and in no way am I suggesting you are) are just making stuff up some other purpose.
NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)... that in all of the replies in this thread, the only one who is questioning the quantity or authenticity of the "I-won't-vote-for-Hillary" posts is YOU?
Everyone else who has replied (positively or negatively) don't seem to have a problem grasping the concept, nor feel a need to debate its reality.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,821 posts)... as to how many people here have posted that they won't vote for HRC if she is the nominee, you can do a site search and find those posts yourself.
JEB
(4,748 posts)to traditional Democratic issues like supporting Labor over Capital, peace over war, people over corporations (who are not people). We'll have to see who best represents those issues.
Hekate
(91,042 posts)Jesus there's a lot of crazy in this thread. I only started using the HRC avatar a lot earlier than I planned to because of all the freaking anti-Hillary rhetoric at DU.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)It literally is unimaginable.
BreakfastClub
(765 posts)nomination, but I can't say for sure, because I don't know who that would be.
I don't have high hopes that Hillary will win, even though I've been supporting her for president since before 2008. There's just so much irrational hatred toward the Clintons, and that coupled with rampant sexism makes me pessimistic that she will win. The last time, I was so excited for her to be the president, and my hopes were not only dashed, but I also realized that an alarming portion of the democratic party is sexist. I have become disillusioned and more realistic about a woman's chances to win the White House since then. Knowing what I know now about the sexism and misogyny that would have to be overcome for any woman to win, I don't think her chances are good.