Please explain why YOU bypass the Democratic primary?

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

It's habitual with Hillary supports. The thread about Hillary's vote on the Iraq War is a perfect, but not an isolated, example.

Hillary supporters always want to divert the argument, and reframe it as, "Would you rather have McCain as president?"

Wow! Talk about spiking the ball before reaching the endzone!!!


No, virtually NO ONE at DU would vote for McCain, Romeny, Jeb, etc.. instead of Hillary.

But many of us would vote for another Democrat over Hillary.

So GET OVER IT!

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. then RUN one.....put your proverbial money where you mouth is...

do you have a candidate that is less a risk against ANY Republican? Do you want to risk the progress we WERE able to eke out under the circumstances? Why are you opposed to what Bernie Sanders himself said...

"We have made progress....now we have to defend it"

But you would rather try OUR luck on a less electable candidate...

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

3. Why would someone who can beat Hillary be "less electable?"

The implication is ironic.

Don't let your fear cloud your ability to think straight.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. First off, Hillary Clinton's never won a tough political battle.

Electoral or otherwise. Why would we risk something this important with someone with a track record like that? Why think that this time, she'll win?

And if she does win... why would we think that she'd change her views, to oppose those policies that have gutted the 99% during the 20 years she's been the Zelig of politics?

[JoePhilly]

33. She would have beat McCain with about the same margin as Obama.

Dems were going to back which ever of them one the primary.

Which should also be true in 2016.

So either create that alternative candidate, or spend the 4-8 years after 2016, creating new personas.

[hfojvt]

2. unfortunately, Hillary is quite likely to win the primary

and it's likely to happen before many of us even get to vote in our primary.

WE are the ones who are gonna have to get over it.

Unless there is a miracle of some sort.

I am hoping for a miracle, but not sanguine at all. Not at all.

I always think evil is gonna win.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

6. Thats may in fact be so...

but many of us won't vote for her until the presidential election. That's when WE get over it.

Not before.

Actually, Hillary benefits for a huge field. It's no different than an Independent running in a the presidential election.

[HooptieWagon]

20. Didn't happen before.

Despite being the "annointed one" , she lost the primary to a relatively unknown African-American with a funny name. Past history is more likely to repeat, so she is not a shoe-in.

[JoePhilly]

34. The folks who wanted a primary of Obama in 2012 should have started

Working on a 2016 candidate.

[JI7]

48. if people don't want her to be the nominee they can vote for someone else

[MohRokTah]

4. You're free to vote for whomsoever you wish to in any election.

I'll be supporting Hillary in 2016, but primaries are there to allow the party as a whole to make the choice, and I'm all for that.

Whomsoever gains the nomination will have my support in the general election regardless.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

7. Awesome, but that's an extremely rare stance around here.

I never even thought about it that way.

Hillary supporters, would you vote for McCain, Romney, Jeb, Christie.. if she loses the primary?



But, that's interesting, but beside the point.

[MohRokTah]

30. I do wish there was a national primary month, though.

Give Dems a chance to vote in the primary for a month straight. File your ballot any time within that month.

Then abide by the results.

I'd accept whatever results came about with that system.

[JoePhilly]

36. We'd vote for whichever Dem wins the primary.

[Journeyman]

8. Many times, the Democratic Primary bypasses ME . . .

Regardless the candidate, the process itself is oftentimes stacked against us.

Instead of the present, flawed process, where people in Iowa of all places have a disproportionate influence on who leaves the race early and who's seen as a "frontrunner," I favor dividing the nation into 6 electoral districts instead and the choice of which district should vote first would rotate among them, so every 24 years each of us would have an opportunity to vote first in the Presidential primary.

All states in an electoral district would have their primaries on the same day. This way, campaigns would focus on a select geographic region -- costs would be lower, there wouldn't be as much travel required, and the media buys would be more focused as well, since neighboring states would be addressed at the same time.

There'd be the added benefit that citizens of each district could expect (indeed, demand) that politicians address the regional issues of their concern as well as the national issues, thereby denying the candidates the opportunity to hide behind national platitudes instead of answering specific questions important to a select electorate.

If the primaries were held every 3 weeks, the primary season could be over in some 3 to 4 months, which might help focus every voter's attention earlier in the process.

But it'll probably never happen. Too many vested interests with too much at stake in the present, crippled system.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

10. THAT is a great point. It bypasses most of us to be honest

[Drunken Irishman]

22. Having a primary on the same day pretty much guarantees Hillary a win...

It also benefits the better known, and better funded, candidates. Had we done that in 2008, Hillary Clinton would've easily defeated Barack Obama in a national primary. Up until the Iowa Caucus, Clinton led Obama by a wide margin:

Rasmussen Reports (December 17–20, 2007): Hillary Clinton 39%, Barack Obama 27%
Reuters/Zogby/American Research Group (December 12–14, 2007): Hillary Clinton 40%, Barack Obama 32%
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll (December 6–9, 2007): Hillary Clinton 40%, Barack Obama 30%

The problem with your set up is that not every campaign can feasibly manage a 50 state strategy. Only the most competitively funded campaigns could pull off traveling across the country instead of focusing on certain states.

I see no reason why 2016 would be any different. Hillary overwhelmingly leads Warren nationally. The only hope Warren has is, like Obama, winning Iowa and using that as a springboard to future primary success. But if you leave it to one day, Hillary wins in a laugher - just as she probably would have in 2008.

[baldguy]

9. Single issue absolutism destroys political coalitions.

If you won't support the Democratic nominee for President because they did one thing that you didn't like over a decade ago - then you're making it that much easier for the GOP to win.

For people who care about progressive issues Ralph Nader & others like him is really not an option. So GET OVER IT!

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

11. Perfect! Typical dodge! What part of...

"not an isolated example" don't you (want to) understand.

Take a bow

[baldguy]

14. How does *NOT* supporting the Democratic candidate help your cause?

Answer: It doesn't.

[Union Scribe]

35. You really are proving the OP's point.

She is NOT THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE.

[baldguy]

55. The OP's point is shit. It doesn't just apply to Hillary, but to ANY possible candidate.

And it just plays into the hands of the GOP.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

40. :crazy eyes:

[rhett o rick]

45. If the single issue happened to be a total disregard for what America wanted, what the world wanted,

and the kowtowing to Bush the Dim-Son, which lead to the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent children, then yes, that issue will destroy America as we know it. Ms. Clinton isnt ignorant. She knew the neocons were lying. They didnt fool her. Yet she yielded before them. Her duty in our representative democracy was to do the right thing. Instead she sided with the neocons, she sided with Bush and Cheney, she sided with Rummy and Condie. She betrayed us and a million Iraqi's are dead, thousands of Americans are wounded. I hope that you agree with me that that "one thing" is significant. That that one thing should never be forgotten or forgiven. She betrayed us. Why should we ever trust her again. The result of her (and others) actions may have harmed this country so badly that we will not recover in my lifetime.

Sorry but I cant "get over it" the unnecessary deaths of over a hundred thousand innocent children.

[dflprincess]

52. "For people who care about progressive issues Ralph Nader & others like him is really not an option"

For people who care about progressives issues Clinton really isn't an option either.

[Brother Buzz]

12. Because Californians usually end up having no say in who the presidential candidate will be?

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

13. Illinois, too

[TheKentuckian]

17. Nor us. I wonder what percentage of the population typically gets a real say between the highly

controlled presented options.

My primary vote has ever been either solidarity rubber stamp or protest for President.

[Journeyman]

19. See my post #8 above. . .

[davidpdx]

27. Ours is the same day as Kentucky

One of a long string of the last primaries. We were lucky the last time around that the nomination had not been decided already. I can't remember who I voted for in the primary in 2004, but I believe Kerry had already won the nomination.

[Journeyman]

15. See my post #8 above. . .

[Brother Buzz]

16. Word!

[treestar]

21. That is absurd

Does California have no delegates at the convention? Since when has the Democratic party prohibited California from sending delegates?

[Drunken Irishman]

23. California played a huge role in the 2008 primary.

It was a pivotal state that kept Clinton's hopes alive. Had Obama managed to win it, and the primary process probably fizzles out long before May.

[Brother Buzz]

24. California's 2008 primary was held in February

California's 2016 primary is back to usual June

[Drunken Irishman]

26. Blame your governor then...

Looks like it was a cost-saving measure. My guess is a lot of states would bemoan the idea of a national primary for that very reason.

California had tried to increase its political influence in 2008 by shifting the presidential primary to Super Tuesday. However, the shift cost state taxpayers about $97 million.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/30/california-primary-moved-_n_913836.html

[JI7]

47. i'm in California and don't really care

people can still make calls to out of state voters and for those with time and resources they can campaign in other states.

many people from california go to nevada and some other neighboring states which have more competitive elections to support candidates.

i find people who complain about these things never really being involved in anything.

you will see people complain about iowa, new hampshire after the primary but they will never do anything in the 4 years between the elections to try to bring some change.

[Drunken Irishman]

49. I don't really care, either. I live in Utah...

It's about as important in the primary process as the CPAC straw poll.

I like the system. I think it's important to focus on a handful of states early to allow lesser competitive campaigns the chance to win. A one day primary would absolutely benefit the more funded campaigns. In a scenario like that, Hillary would've won in 2008.

[former9thward]

25. CA is free to move its primary to a far earlier date.

[Jim Lane]

54. Not completely free

The Democratic Party puts limits on primary dates. The party's concern was that, because states that vote earlier have more influence, there would be a race to the front of the calendar.

The rules protect the privileged position of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. I agree with not leaving it completely up to each state, but it's not fair that the same states are in the protected early position, cycle after cycle after cycle.

[former9thward]

56. I don't see why a political party should be able to tell a state when they can have an election.

The people of the state should be able to have their election when they want rather than have it dictated to them.

[Jim Lane]

58. If it's left up to the states, everything will be front-loaded

There were states that were jealous (understandably) of New Hampshire's undue influence. They were considering scheduling their primaries ahead of New Hampshire's, earlier in January. New Hampshire responded by threatening to move still earlier, into December if need be. In fact, I think New Hampshire passed a law mandating that it have the first primary -- any early date by another state would automatically trigger a rescheduling of the New Hampshire primary so that it would still be first.

If the people of two states pass such a law, the 2016 primaries will begin this summer. That's not a good outcome.

Even without states trying to get ahead of Iowa or New Hampshire, they would still recognize (as have several people in this thread) that earlier is better. We might have 20 state primaries the week after New Hampshire's. That's also not a good outcome. Candidates who aren't the initial front-runners don't have the money and name recognition to compete on that scale so early in the process.

The idea of the current system is to restrict the initial contests to four comparatively small states, one in each major geographical region (Midwest, East, South, and West), so that lesser-known candidates have the chance to build their appeal and become serious contenders. If each state could set its own date, totally without restrictions, that system would fall apart.

I personally believe that rotating regional primaries (along the lines suggested by Journeyman in post #8) would be better than the current system, but the current system is better than the free-for-all that would result from the elimination of party rules.

[JI7]

46. Hillary SUpporters are already working in CAlifornia to get support for Her

if you want an earlier primary why don't you get the state govt to change it ?

or why don't you get to work on supporting a candidate you like ?

[Zorra]

18. I saw no significant difference in social or economic policy between Clinton

and Obama.

It was the first Dem Presidential primary I did not vote in since I reached of voting age.

[left on green only]

28. I Don't Vote In Democratic Primaries Because I Am A Member Of The Green Party.

But if I could have the opportunity to vote for Elizabeth Warren in a Democratic Primary, I would change all of that in a heart beat. Even if it was only to vote that way one time, before I switched back.

LOGO

[Drale]

29. At this point who the hell even knows?

I supported Hillary in 2008 until Obama decided he was gonna run officially then I decided he was the better choice. The presidential election is 3 years out and we have no idea who's even going to run so stop bitching and focus on the election this year.

[JoePhilly]

31. Or, maybe you could promote a better candidate??

Whining about Hillary isn't going to generate a better alternative.

If some on DU spent as much effort on the latter as they do on the former, there'd probably be a bunch of great alternatives.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

41. huh?

Did you wake up from a long winter's nap?

That's a ridiculous question. You guys are just so "looked in" you can't think straight.

[NightWatcher]

32. Ok, who else is running?

Only after people have announced that they are seeking the nom can you debate who should win.

[tabbycat31]

37. First of all

It is 2014 not 2016. Let's focus on these midterms before presidential discussions even begin. We do not want another 2010.

Second of all, when I vote for a candidate in the primary (which is a token vote, because my state decides their nominees at a convention), I vote for the one who is most likely to defeat a Republican in November. My first choice in the 2008 primaries was John Edwards (dodged a bullet there). He dropped out of the race a week before my state voted, but as much as I liked and agreed with his policies (affair aside), I'm not sure if (pre affair) John Edwards would have beat McCain in November (post-affair John Edwards would have had his ass kicked). I'd rather see ANY Democrat in office over ANY Republican, and if that means that I vote for the most electable candidate, so be it.

I personally HATE purity tests (ask Senator Christine O'Donnell and Senator Todd Akin how those worked on the other side) and I do sacrifice principle for electability. I've worked on elections in now 6 states and have seen this reality up close. I might not agree with it, but these are the cards that we were dealt, and we have to play the game as the rules stand.

Changing the electorate is not something that is a short-term (one cycle) process. It's a project that local and county parties can take on, but it requires years of registering new voters, and educating existing ones. To win in the short-term, first a candidate who appeals to the swing voters (read not a flaming liberal or hardcore teabagger-- this obviously varies by district. San Francisco is a different ballgame than Alabama). And truth be told liberals have a long way to go. I've heard many times (on doors and at the phones) that the Democrat is too liberal, but I have never heard that the Republican is too conservative.

[Gothmog]

38. Hillary Clinton is one of the few Democrats who could put Texas in play

There is good polling that show that Hillary Clinton could put Texas in play. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/01/clinton-could-win-texas.html. I would love to see Texas become a battleground state. I can not think of another national Democratwho can put Texas in play

[Warpy]

39. When the seat is open or occupied by a Republican's useless butt

I have to be in hospital to miss it.

Otherwise, it depends on how many spoons I have that day.

(Spoons: http://www.butyoudontlooksick.com/wpress/articles/written-by-christine/the-spoon-theory/ )

[Major Nikon]

42. Personally I would vote for Satan if he were on the Democratic ticket

Seems preferable to the alternative.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

43. Beaut-i-ful...Almost 40 replies and only 2 or 3 gave a direct reply

Will this thread get to 80 before we get a 4th?

Probably...

[Iggo]

57. The question was, basically: Why are you skipping the primary?

And you say only two or three answered directly, which to me means that only two or three people in this thread are skipping the primary.

That's good news.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

44. Holy Shit, I forgot how crazy you guys were after Obama beat Hillary lol

Sheesus! Another primary loss and you guys might actually make Hillary run as a 3rd Party Candidate.

We’ve gotten an avalanche of emails from around the country this week in the wake of news that Sen. Hillary Clinton will be closing out her campaign Saturday.

This one, from Billie Bromer of Augusta, Georgia, is representative of many, capturing the sentiments of Hillary supporters — angry, aggrieved, mournful — as they watch the end of a landmark campaign.

What it shows: the considerable challenges ahead for the Obama campaign — and the Democratic Party — when it comes to winning these voters over in the next 150 days.

Take a read:


I am one of those ‘upset’ Hillary supporters who is clinging to Hillary.com during my ‘mourning and grieving’ process. The media, the pundits, the politicians, and even the two remaining candidates are talking about me and my vote in November. But the story about Hillary supporters is incomplete.

The most simple — but woefully incorrect — way to address the topic of the displaced, diehard Hillary women supporters is to lump us all together.

We came to Hillary for different reasons and we are clinging to Hillary for different reasons.

Some of us are pretty strong feminists and we absolutely love the fact that Hillary represents all facets of the very best of women — smart, tough, soft, protective, devious, tender, assertive compassionate (should I go on?)

Some of us have been more moderate (sensible) Democrats and we absolutely love the fact that she doesn’t represent the more liberal/progressive lean the party seems to be taking.

Some of us just do not like Obama and we are NOT racists for not liking him. We see him as arrogant and smug and he just does not ‘inspire’ us.

We are homeless now and we are desperately seeking a home. We feel we have been ”abused” by the Obama campaign and by the Democratic party.

Why would we go back to our abusers, especially when they continue to minimize our thoughts and feelings? The feminist in some of us certainly trumps any party loyalty we may have had and actually trumps any views we may have on Roe v. Wade or Iraq.

The more the party tells us how ”silly” or ”stupid” we are to ever consider supporting McCain, the more we become convinced of how we are not silly or stupid.

There is a message to be taken from this.

Continued scorn for Senator Clinton or my support for her is clearly not the way to get my vote. Continued pressure on Senator Clinton to get us into the fold is not the way to get my vote.

Obama himself needs to get my vote!

Continued denial by the party that half its voters just don’t like their candidate is not the way to get my vote.

Any suggestion that I am bitter, delusional, should get over it because I lost, in mourning, desperate, or otherwise inadequate is not the way to get my vote.

What is the way to get my vote?

I don’t know but, for me, it’s not by making Hillary VP. For others, it seems to be.

Will it take sensitivity and outreach from Obama for me? A double team effort? Nah! I have no interest in seeing or listening to Obama.

Outreach from Hillary? Sure! But would it be with freedom for her to address women’s concerns about sexism? I don’t think so because the party wants me to just ”unite” and forget how divided it really is.

Just like the superdelegate ”drip, drip, drip” to Obama, there seems to be a ”drip, drip, drip” of Hillary voters away from him. Understanding us may be the first way to stop the flow.

Thank you for listening.

Billi L. Bromer

Augusta, Georgia

http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2008/06/06/hillarys-supporters-to-obama-continued-scorn-will-not-get-my-vote/

[brooklynite]

50. No pro-Hillary person has opposed a Primary

...just as no pro-Hillary person has said they WOULD NOT VOTE FOR Sanders, Warren, etc. if they won the nomination.

We HAVE said that such candidates are (in our opinion) less viable candidates in a national election. You can disagree, but it's an opinion we can reasonably hold.

We have ALSO said that many of us expect that if Hillary is nominated, she'll win handily. You can disagree, but it's an opinion supported by current polling.

What seems to annoy the anti-Hillary people the most though is our pointing out that you don't seen to have a candidate who's acceptable liberal AND who's willing to run against her. Despite all the fantasies about Elizabeth Warren, she's said she doesn't want to run, and appears to have encouraged Hillary to do so. And despite his musings about an Independent run, Bernie Sanders has never said he'd try to run in the Democratic Primary. More importantly, none of the anti-Hillary people have indicated that they'll lift a finger to encourage an acceptably liberal candidate to run. "Ready for Hillary" has raised millions of dollars and rounded up millions of volunteers to support a Hillary run. Anti-Hillary people have...posted criticism of her on a blog site.

[SheilaT]

51. Hillary represents the past.

Pure and simple in my opinion.

She has never come out strongly in favor of the working class, unlike say Elizabeth Warren or Al Franken or Bernie Sanders.

And to castigate everyone who is a Hillary supporter by saying they'll bypass the Democratic primary in their state simply ignores the realities of our current primary process. If you're lucky you live in a state that goes early enough that your vote really does matter. If not, well if you're a very strong supporter of an obviously losing candidate, you'll still show up.

I was in Kansas in 2008. Our caucuses were held on a day of totally miserable weather. The turnout was amazing. Thousands of people (I was one) stood in line in rain, sleet, freezing rain, and snow to participate. The dedication of all was humbling.

In 2012 I was in New Mexico. We didn't bother to have a primary or caucus. Have no idea what we'll be doing in two and a half years.

And isn't there some little election before then?

[SwankyXomb]

53. I'm voting in the Democratic primary.

Who for, I'm not sure yet. I am willing to bet that more than a few posters in this thread won't, because they'll be voting in the Republican one.

[Motown_Johnny]

59. Add to that what happened in MI and FL during the '08 primary

and you have one hell of an argument.


Sec. Clinton simply isn't the right candidate for us. She is wrong on far to many issues to choose over all other Democrats.