I didn't vote against Romney in 2012

[democrattotheend]

I didn't have to. I had a president I was very excited to vote for. I didn't want Romney to be president because I disagreed with most of his policies and didn't want more conservative judges, but I never thought he was a terrible person and I figured he would be a bad but not terrible president, probably not as bad as Bush. But I was way more excited to vote for Obama's re-election than I was passionate about stopping Romney.

I don't have a preference yet in the primaries because I just can't get as excited about any of the candidates running as I was about Obama. All of the candidates have strengths and weaknesses, but none of them inspires me as much as he did. This is probably in part because I am older and less starry-eyed now than I was during Obama's elections, but I really wish I could feel the same passion I felt back then. To quote Leo McGarry on West Wing when Josh tried to get him interested in joining a campaign for Bartlett's successor, "I already got my guy." Am I the only one feeling this way?

I'm voting against Trump in November no matter what. But I really hope by the time the primaries are over, whoever the nominee is, most of us can feel like we have someone to vote for, because I feel like when most of a party's voters are voting more against the other guy than for their own candidate the party doesn't win.

I hope this is okay to post here, since it's not in favor or or against any specific candidate. But if you feel this belongs in the Primaries board I will move it.

[LuvLoogie]

1. My passion is for what's at stake.

For my wife and daughters, my family, the country I Iive in.

I don't get this needing to be excited, to be inspired to vote. I really don't.

[Silent3]

2. Exactly!

Damn, I hate it when people act like their vote is a precious prize that they need to be wooed to bestow on just the exactly right person.

A vote is an important thing, but for what it accomplishes, what it helps to do that should be done and helps to prevent that should be prevented. It's not so important for personal vanity or as a means of self-indulgent self-expression.

[democrattotheend]

3. I think you misunderstood my post (or I probably didn't articulate it very well)

Because I completely agree with all of that. I got really annoyed by snowflakes I met in 2016, like the young woman in Pennsylvania who had supported Bernie in the primary and was now voting for Jill Stein because it was her "first vote" and she wanted it to be for someone she really believed in. I tried to reason with her, and explained that I had also supported Bernie in the primaries, but I felt that stopping Trump was too important and Hillary was the only one who could do that. But she wasn't having it, because it was her first vote and she wanted it to be special. In fairness to Bernie, I think this woman would have been voting for Jill Stein even if he hadn't ran against Hillary, but it seriously annoyed me that she thought her special first vote was more important than stopping someone like Trump from becoming president.

People like this annoy me, but the bottom line is, people need something to vote for, not just something to vote against. As horrible as Trump is, we won't win if we are perceived as standing for nothing more than stopping Trump. I think some candidates are doing a better job of this than others, but in general, it's a perception many people have of the Democrats as a whole and it needs to change. Otherwise, we will lose for the same reason Kerry and Romney and Hillary all lost - fairly or not, they were defined more in terms of what (and who) they were against than what they were for. Trump's supporters, crazy as they are, have someone they can't wait to vote for. We need the same or we won't win. I sincerely hope that whatever happens in the primary, we can all come together afterwards and unite around a candidate most people can vote for, not just against Trump. Maybe that's an idealistic fantasy, but I don't think so. I was excited to vote for Hillary in 2016 despite the fact that she wasn't my first choice in the primary either time. I don't think any of the candidates we have now have as much political talent as Obama, but most of them offer something to get excited about other than not being Trump. So I encourage everyone to focus on what's good about our candidates even if they don't get their first choice.

[Silent3]

5. I was just emphatically agreeing with LuvLoogie's reply to your post...

...no misunderstanding of your OP going on. No worries

You're certainly correct that "people need something to vote for, not just something to vote against". In this case, however, voting against Trump should be more than enough. It annoys me greatly that "people" nevertheless remain as you describe anyway.

[ibegurpard]

4. Both

I voted against him more than for Obama which was a reverse of 08. We dont have to rehabilitate Romney to acknowledge the significance of what he did yesterday.

[democrattotheend]

6. I'm not trying to rehabilitate him

Just saying that he would have been a hell of a lot better than Trump. I think we can all agree on that.