Would You Vote For Hillary?

[Prophet 451]

Would be a poll, except I'm not a star member so I can't post polls. Straight yes/no question. Assuming Hillary gets through the primary and is the Democratic nominee in 2016, would you vote for her (holding your nose if necessary)?

If you want to add your reasons why/why not, feel free.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. I don't plan on it. I will leave that place blank on my ballot. n/t

[jaysunb]

2. no n/t

[AtomicKitten]

3. Not a chance.

Last edited Thu Nov 13, 2014, 05:44 AM - Edit history (1)

[KMOD]

4. I'm going to wait and see who throws thier hat in the ring.

Then I'll wait for the primaries.

Then I'll vote dem, like I always do, whether I hold my nose, or not.

[TreasonousBastard]

5. If she gets the nod, a lot depends on who she's running against, but...

even at this point it's a pretty safe guess it would be someone terrible.

So, yeah, without a qualm at all. Why let the other guy get a free ride into the White House?

[Prophet 451]

7. The Republican would doubtless be a frothing madman

Let's be honest, that party is not going to come back to sanity in the next two years. They're going to get worse.

[peacebird]

58. Still 'No'

[11 Bravo]

96. I hope there aren't enough of you to provide some ...

mouth-breathing Republican with the opportunity to give us another John Roberts, Sam Alito or worse.

[peacebird]

123. I hope we get some good candidates in the primary, & HRC isn't the nominee

[11 Bravo]

182. So do I, but that doesn't address your statement that you ...

will not vote for her even if she is the nominee. Clearly that's your prerogative, but if the end result is a couple of Supreme Court justices who refer to Scalia and Alito as "our liberal friends"; then you will have forfeited your right to complain about that outcome.

[on point]

6. no way.

[sabrina 1]

8. No!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Nope. A little wear and tear on the nose I can manage. But, Hillary? No thanks.

[vadermike]

10. yes

I would.. my question is whether we put up Hillary or Bernie or Liz.. or whoever ... what if we lose in '16? Do the Dems not see the WH for another generation ? God i hope not.......

[Special Prosciuto]

11. WhyTF should it be assumed Hillary gets the nomination?!

NO. And my nose breathes free.

[VanillaRhapsody]

206. polling numbers..

[fadedrose]

12. If she's the nominee

what difference does it make? We're screwed....

[2banon]

185. we are indeed screwed. right wing reactionary war hawks have been running things long enough.. n/t

[NanceGreggs]

13. Without hesitation ...

... and no nose-holding required.

If she's the (D) nominee, she has my vote - as would any other (D) nominee for POTUS.

Party above all else? You're damned fuckin' real, party above all else. I've seen the country under an (R) presidency - so, yes, party above that shit, every time.

[Ken Burch]

35. Although we do have a right to expect, AND DEMAND,

That no Democratic president ever again be as far to the right as Bill Clinton was. That eight years was the "too far" point. If Clinton had somehow managed to lose to Dole in '96, nothing important at all would have changed...and it is intolerable to ever have to say that about a Democratic president.

Bare minimum requirements for a Democratic president should be:

1)no lost ground for workers.
2)no lost ground for the poor.
3)no lost ground for women.
4)no lost ground for LGBTQ people.

If we can't count on those four things(and we're just talking about "no lost ground"...not EVEN talking about gains at all), it's NOT a Democratic administration, and we're conceding the idea that we have no right to expect anything from anyone we elect.

And the voters were never actually demanding that a Democratic president throw ALL of those groups under the bus. Only the big donors did.

[NanceGreggs]

148. Well, I'm not sure ...

... what you're suggesting here, Ken.

If the "requirements" you've set out are not met by a (D) presidential candidate, are you suggesting people not vote?

I just want to be clear on what you're saying here.

[Ken Burch]

153. Not not vote, but have a right to keep expecting.

And that they would justify a primary challenge next time if not met.

You would agree, I hope, that none of what I listed there was extreme or unreasonable.

The only alternative to having those minimal and painfully moderate standards is to have no standards at all.

We tried that in 1992, and the results were eight years of total irrelevance and failure for people of conscience.

The Nineties were unacceptable. Clinton was so far to the right that it wouldn't have mattered at all if Dole had beaten him. We can't ever let it get like that again.

Agreed?

[NanceGreggs]

169. Not agreed. n/t

[Ken Burch]

172. What does that mean?

Last edited Fri Nov 14, 2014, 04:11 AM - Edit history (1)

That it's enough for you to elect someone who just calls her or himself a Democrat?

That dignity and principle mean next to nothing.

If we don't demand, at the least, a guarantee of no lost ground, why even bother?

It's worthless just to settle for slightly less lost ground, and it's never even necessary.

Slightly less lost ground isn't anything at all...and it isn't different than just plain losing.

[NanceGreggs]

173. I see no point ...

... in continuing a discussion wherein you decide what I "mean", what is enough or not enough for me, etc.

Apparently you are happy to fill in both sides of the conversation - so why don't you just proceed without me? There's really no point in my participation - you can just speak for both of us, as is your wont.

[Ken Burch]

174. So tell me what you DO mean, then?

Those five things I listed were minimal. How could any candidate who wouldn't even commit to fighting at least for no lost ground possibly be worthy of the support of anyone who claims to be progressive?

Clearly, "cuts that aren't as deep" isn't a worthwhile goal.

[NanceGreggs]

175. As I've already said ...

... I have no desire to engage in "conversation" with someone who has already decided for me what I mean when I say something.

So please proceed, Ken. Answer the question for me - and then opine on whatever it was I allegedly said in response.

[Ken Burch]

177. I rewrote the post you were offended by. Sorry.

I don't want to answer the question for you. Your own answer "not agreed", was meaningless.

You should provide a better explanation.

[NanceGreggs]

200. Excuse me, Ken ...

... for deigning to speak for myself, but I didn't "freak out" over anything.

It is exactly that kind of hyperbolic nonsense that has replaced actual discussion/debate on DU.

First there is the "so what you really mean is" replies that attribute words and thoughts to other posters, without regard for listening to their actual opinions. This is often accompanied with a display of the black-and-white thinking that has become pervasive here, where not agreeing with one thing automatically translates to embracing the exact opposite position, e.g. "So you don't trust Snowden? Then you obviously think spying on Americans is okay."

And then we come to the "freaking out" BS. It's rampant. Posts about BOGgers "freaking out" because someone criticized Obama, or HRC supporters "freaking out" over Sanders' thinking about running, or Warren supporters "freaking out" over her latest comment that she is not interested in a presidential run.

I could provide a "better explanation" of my views. But, quite frankly, I can't be bothered. Not here, anyway, where all attempts at actual discussion are pointless.

[Ken Burch]

201. You could have responded to the post by saying "no. you're wrong. What I ACTUALLY believe is..."

Or elaborated in your post before that rather than just saying "not agreed", which you posted as if those two words should have ended the matter.

I respect your overall passion, but you would have done better by actually saying why you think we SHOULDN'T be able to count on Democrats fighting, at a bare minimum, for the five general ideas I listed above, five ideas that were deeply moderate and reasonable. Why didn't you do that? Nothing I listed there and nothing I listed there was worthy of dismissiveness on your part.

I've now changed "freaked out about" to "were offended by". Can we move on?

[NanceGreggs]

202. I am not being dismissive of the topic.

I am being dismissive of the notion that actual discussion is possible here.

Yes, I could have responded by saying what I actually believe. But I have set out quite succinctly why I choose not to, and why I think it pointless to do so.

[2banon]

184. Deliberate obtuse response deserves full ignore option Ken.

[Chemisse]

214. You should include the environment in that list.

It's THE most important issue. None of these other things will matter if the earth cannot sustain humanity.

[Ken Burch]

215. You're right. n/t.

[RiverLover]

216. BIG +1 ~nt

[jen63]

14. I would love to see Warren, Sherrod Brown or

Berne Sanders run as a Democrat in the primaries. Even if all they do is manage pull HRC to the left, it'll be wroth it to me.If they manage to pull her to the left and she gets the nomination, it may be enougth to pull her farther lefT. Though I'm not holding out for this to happen.

[pnwmom]

15. I would be an idiot not to since otherwise I'd be helping the Rethug. n/t

[Liberal Lolita]

21. The exact reason I would too.

[MFM008]

16. I will vote for whoever is our nominee

all the speculation is pointless. Who gets the nomination gets the vote. period.

[Union Scribe]

17. From what I've read here

her numbers are great and she'll easily beat anyone the GOP nominates, plus most of her supporters are wholesale dismissing all of us to her left, so I have zero reason to even consider voting for her no matter what angle I approach the question from.

[cascadiance]

205. I think a generic Democrat will easily beat anyone the GOP nominates. Doesn't matter if its Hillary

Of course the corporate media tries to define that generic Democrat as Hillary to try and make her out to be some great candidate, but the fact is that this big vote would be more "against the Republican" than "for Hillary".

[msongs]

18. can't make that predicition this far out nt

[Ken Burch]

19. In the fall, if nominated.

But she has no right to even ask any non-Third Way voters(are there really any such thing as "Third Way voters", btw?) to back her in the primaries.

And if she's nominated, she should let people from the Warren, Wellstone and Sanders traditions write the platform, because what happened in 2014 proves that "centrism" is now extinct as a political force in this country.

The only votes a Democratic presidential nominee CAN get in 2016 are from people who...

1)Don't want continued U.S. military intervention in the Arab world;
2)Don't want the corporate version of "free trade";
3)Don't want low inflation to be given a higher priority than full employment in the U.S. economy;
4)Don't want the wealthy to be treated as the only people whose wishes and needs really matter in this country;
5)Don't want this party to concede the idea that corporate domination of U.S. economic and political life is the natural and permanent social order.

The good news is that the people who don't want those five things are a massive majority of the population of this country. If we engage them and speak to what they care about, we can win going away.

Not rocket science.

[AndyTiedye]

30. 6) Don't Want a Theocracy

The Rapeuglican nominee is likely to be someone like Huckabee.

[Ken Burch]

33. That, too.

And we've even seen our "leaders" cave on that...acting like we have no right to expect them to defend the legitimacy of people choosing NOT to be loudly religious or not to be religious at all if people wish not to be.

Beltway Dems have pre-surrendered to the "we're a Christian Nation" meme, with no fight at all.

[merrily]

39. And Senator Hillary was with The Family in DC. I don't want theocracy overt or theocracy covert.

The Family/The Fellowhip is a cult that is all about theocracy. Worse, it believes that those God calls to political leadership, like King David of the OT, are not subject to the laws of God OR man that apply to those not so called. Hence, Sanford could rationalize his adultery and his dereliction of duty as a Governor, as well as a husband and father, indeed, expressly citing King David.

For those not Biblicly versed, so to speak, King David had concubines and also lusted after Bathsheba, whom he peeping Tom-ed while she was bathing. However, she was married, and to a member of David's military. So, King David deliberately put her husband in harm's way--attempted murder, really. Yet, David was beloved of God, so beloved, in fact, that God chose David's line for Joseph, surrogate father of Jesus.

[ZombieHorde]

20. Only if I move to a purple state.

If I am living in a solid blue or red state, then no, I wouldn't vote for her.

[Hekate]

22. If she's still on the ballot when we have the Primary elections, probably....

A lot of candidates get winnowed out by the time we have our primaries in California. I was still trying to decide between Obama and Hillary in 2008 when she dropped out. As a general rule over my 45 years of voting, my pick never makes it out of the primaries anyway.

And if she gets the nomination, I most definitely will vote for her, because the alternative is unspeakable.

[ieoeja]

118. What are you talking about?

The California primary in 2008 was on Super Tuesday. Not only had Hillary not already dropped out, she was confident that she would actually sow up the Democratic nomination on that date.

For that matter, she beat Obama in the California primary! She got 51% of the vote to Obama's 43% picking up 204 delegates to Obama's 166 for that primary.

[demmiblue]

23. In the primary, hell no. In the general, yes. n/t

[Hyper_Eye]

24. Yes

[Raine]

25. NO nt

[LostInAnomie]

26. Without hesitation.

[Pastiche423]

27. No!

[gwheezie]

28. Yes

I think she'd be a good president.

[davidpdx]

29. Nope

[AndyTiedye]

31. Yes, In the General Election

This question relates to the GENERAL election. I will probably vote for someone more progressive in the primary.

The ones who claim there is no difference because both have corporate backing obviously place no value on things like the right to have an abortion or use birth control, or do anything else that the bible-thumpers don't like.

[GreatGazoo]

32. Yes

[RiverLover]

34. No

[Sherman A1]

36. As the nominee... Yes

in the primary, not a chance.

[eridani]

37. Only in a general election n/t

[merrily]

38. I have no clue why any DUer has to take a loyalty oath before she even commits to running.

Besides, a "no" reply would violate the TOS of the board and a "yes" reply could be bs and is not legally binding anyway. Nor will either response determine the 2016 general or primary.

So fuck it. Twice.

What is the point/goal of this question, anyway? It gets asked here over and over and over, and it's not even announcement time or primary time, let alone general time.

Despite all the efforts of the DNC and the bought shills among us to "make it so," she's not any more inevitable now than she was in 2006-08, maybe less so. And if she is the nominee, she may well lose. Stop it. Just stop this stuff.

May I suggest staring at goats instead?

[Prophet 451]

41. Not a loyalty oath, not a trick question, not a trap

I was curious, that's all. That's the only purpose of the question.

And that was a great movie.

[merrily]

47. Not really an explanation. Everyone who asks any question that is not purely rhetorical is curious.

Question is, why are they curious? What, if anything, do they think the answers will tell them or do for them?

For one thing, as I said, your question sets up everyone who says no for a possible hide, maybe even a possibly banning. So, how valid are the answers really? And why do that to your fellow DUers for what, according to you, is no reason at all, just satisfying your totally reason-less curiosity?

Iinteresting that you did not even give a response to the comment in my prior post about violating the TOS. Or to any comment in my prior post, except the one about the movie (a movie about government mind games, at that).

And yes, you are looking for a loyalty oath (or an answer that violates the TOS), whether you realize it or not, and very prematurely at that. So are the other DUers who have been asking this same damned question for months.

[Prophet 451]

53. Please stop trying to second-guess me

I promise, I'm not that subtle. I had completely forgotten about that TOS section.

[merrily]

60. First guess or second, I never tried any guess what your motives or reasons might be.

I described what I saw in your posts on this thread, period.

Gotta go now, anyway. Enjoy my absence. But, if you really don't want to cause any DUer any kind of grief here, you could delete your OP now that you remember some of the possible ramifications of answering your question.

[B Calm]

40. She would be the lesser of two evils. So yes, but I

would be pinching my nose.

[pampango]

42. In a perfect world, NO. I would vote for myself or someone just like me. In the real world, YES. n/t

[Katashi_itto]

44. Not even if Hell froze over.

[GeorgeGist]

45. NO to any Boomer.

They've had their opportunity. Time to move on.

[BeyondGeography]

51. The youngest boomers just turned 50

Wtf are you thinking?

[Prophet 451]

55. Well, politics is a game for the middle-aged

and the middle-aged right now, are Boomers. Most of those younger are too struggling to make ends meet.

[Reter]

102. Xers are middle aged, not Boomers

The youngest Boomer is 50.

[BeyondGeography]

111. I hate to break it to you, but age is being defined down in this country

And it's older people who are doing it. You could treat that as another reason to despise boomers, or you could look at it as human nature, American-style. 50 is the beginning of middle-aged in the minds of most people. It's a country that has long glorified youth and looks and, by golly, 50-year-olds do look a helluva lot better now than they did 50 years ago. If you doubt it, take a look at your grandparents in those childhood photos from the 60s (for those who have them). Cushier jobs, better diets and no smoking will do that for you.

For the record, I'm 55 and I get very tired of "60 is the new 40," crapola. I'd like to stop working so hard yesterday. But you're dealing with people whose older years are defined by later-in-life children, more debt, higher overheads/cost-of-living and an ability to keep earning longer in white collar jobs. Among other things, that means boomers are going to be in the power conversation for at least another 10 to 15 years. With that, can we all get along? It's in everyone's interest.

[Reter]

165. Middle-aged means roughly halfway to death

When the average human life expectancy is 100 (or close to it), then they can call 50 middle-aged. Right now it's in the 76-84 range, so middle-aged is 38 to 42.

Now, that's not to say you're old or anything like that. 55 still has plenty of life left. I agree that we all look better now then 50 years ago. Exercise is another major factor.

[BeyondGeography]

168. As a practical matter, if you call someone 38 to 42 middle-aged

you won't do well socially in this country. But the main point is, get used to older candidates because the perception of what's old keeps going up.

[still_one]

61. "No to any boomer"? What a critical thinker. I hate to burst your bubble, but Elizabeth Warren is

a boomer

[justiceischeap]

46. Yes

She may be third way but she'd be better than any Republican any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[avebury]

48. No - If the Democratic Party fails to grow a spine over the next

two years and actually start to fight for us I plan on sitting out the next election. Any candidate that isn't Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders is really only Republican lite. I am so ready for a new Progressive Party to emerge.

[brooklynite]

190. So there only three candidates you would support...

Two aren't running, and nobody's pointed out a plausible case for how the third wins a national election in which Republicans get to vote as well.

[aikoaiko]

49. Yes, but it reserve the vote for someone leftier if he or she can show leadership.

And by leadership I mean someone who can develop significant followship.

[TheKentuckian]

50. Nope, the party throws away my vote with such a nomination and further, I will resent it.

The only vote I would give to Hillary is in a tightly contested primary against someone like an even more odious Andrew Cuomo and she still would not draw my vote in the general.

No means no.

[djean111]

52. Hillary has not even said, officially, what her platform and objectives are. Just has some PACs.

So this is premature, unless someone is trying to sew up a Hillary nomination without bothering with those pesky and expensive and risky primaries.
Will I vote for someone who champions the TPP - which is a whole fucking herd of glitter-shitting unicorns, affecting everybody? Nope.
(This is why I believe Obama and the DINOs will shove it through, and anything else controversial, ASAP).

[newfie11]

54. No. Nt

[bullimiami]

56. primary, depending. general, yes.

[peacebird]

57. No

[leftofcool]

59. Yawn.............poll number 15 on HIllary

[baldguy]

62. I will vote for the Democratic Party nominee for President.

I will vote for the Democratic Party nominee for US Senator.

I will vote for the Democratic Party nominee for Congress.

I will vote for the Democratic Party nominee for State Senator.

I will vote for the Democratic Party nominee for State Representative.

I will vote for the Democratic Party nominee for Country Legislature.

I will vote for the Democratic Party nominee for School Board.

I will vote for the Democratic Party nominee for Dog Catcher.




Anyone saying "no" doesn't deserve to honor of claiming to be a Democrat, or a liberal, or a progressive.

[RiverLover]

63. But saying NO to a fake dem, a DINO, deserves the highest honor. ~nt

[baldguy]

68. Of course, that's not the topic of discussion.

No matter what the Clinton-hating anti-Democrat phoney "liberal" RWrs try to make it.

[still_one]

65. absolutely. If for nothing else the SC, because if the republicans win the next election the course

of the country will be determined for the next 20 years, and it will be because of the SC.

I wonder if they believe Ruth Bader Ginsberg was a bad choice? Think who a republican would nominate? Alito, Scalia, Thomas.

Yup, I love the critical thinking here on DU

[Sancho]

64. Yes...I will vote for the Democratic candidate.

I remember being so very disappointed when we lost to Bush. Some critics hated Kerry, Gore, etc. Look what happens when we lose! You can charge up suicide hill if you want and see where it gets you.

Can you imagine if we had NEVER attacked Iraq? I voted for Obama (and every Democrat running), and Obama has been predictably less progressive on some issues than I would like, but he's a world better than Romney!

Hillary was the original proponent of single payer (for example) and the ACA might be better if she had won instead of Obama. I'm sure I wouldn't agree with every Hillary decision, but Warren won't run (and couldn't win if she did run). Sanders would probably run as an independent and also can't win. BTW, Warren and Sanders know they likely can't win. If someone better steps forward then that's great! We can go down the list of issues and I'm sure all the debates will occur. Committing to a position before we've had the first announcement or debate is premature at best and serves no purpose.

If you want Jeb or Rand Paul or Perry - then you need to leave DU and head over to Free Republic. Otherwise, everyone should plan on doing a better job to GOTV than we did last week. There were actually people on DU who openly said they didn't vote for the Democrat last week!! That's crazy.

It's time to be realistic folks. Whoever wins the primary will be my candidate. It's easier for me to work on many issues that take my time and energy than to fret over which candidate rises to the top, because virtually anyone who makes it to the nomination will have to compromise on many things or they will never get elected.

Hillary bashing is just like the typical candidate bashing we always see leading up to an election - but once it gets to voting time, the Democrat is getting my support.

[still_one]

66. Just look at the SC justices appointed by Democrats verses republicans. Is it any clearer?

[JoePhilly]

67. If she is the Dem nominee, yes.

[hobbit709]

69. Only if I had to and it would take a lot of coercion.

[Vinca]

70. I can't give a straight yes/no answer until I hear what she plans to run on. From her mouth.

If she strikes me as Republican lite, it's a "no." My candidate of choice would be either Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, but I don't think either can win (think Ralph Nader). That said, I would normally go to the polls and support the Dems whoever the candidate is just to keep the GOP out. The midterm has made me rethink it all. If the Dem is essentially a Republican, they don't need my vote because either the real Republican or the faux Republican will win the election. I'm leaning toward voting for the person I truly want.

[LawDeeDah]

162. Her record and history have already spoken.

I don't care what she dreams up to say in the primaries, I wouldn't believe it - I believe what she has already said and done. And that means a big fat NO from me.

[LWolf]

71. I'll invoke the 5th on this one. nt

[krawhitham]

72. Only in a general election

Yes she would get my vote but that is all she will get. If someone else is the nominee they will get my vote, time, & money

[bigwillq]

73. No

I live in CT. She will win CT. I will vote for someone else.

[theHandpuppet]

74. Yes.

I would.

[Smarmie Doofus]

75. I loathe her. But perhaps yes. SCOTUS. n/t

[hrmjustin]

76. Yes I would and it is sad to see puma is still here.

While I ask no one to betray their conscience I hated puma in 2008 and I hate it now.

[Hari Seldon]

77. Of course

"IF"

[Stellar]

78. Holding my nose....

Yes, I'd vote for her.

[Javaman]

79. There isn't a clamp made that could hold my nose enough to vote for her. nt

[mindem]

80. No!

[NCTraveler]

81. Asked and answered four times in the last two weeks. nt.

You can use the search function without being a star member.

[Bettie]

82. I'm a Democrat

so, yes, I'll vote for our nominee, whoever that may be.

[Oilwellian]

83. No

I will no longer vote third way. I'm a Democrat.

[littlewolf]

84. if she is the nominee, I am voting for her. why is this even a question? nt

[GusBob]

85. Yes, already did in 2008 along with 18 million other voters

she actually got more popular votes than BO in that election

of course back then it was cool to vote for D.

Now the hip thing is to not vote, and whine. Whining is the new voting

[MineralMan]

86. I will vote for the Democratic Party nominee.

I will always do that in any presidential election.

I am a Democrat.

[LuvNewcastle]

87. Never.

[CBHagman]

88. I would, and without holding my nose.

It's too early to decide which candidate to support in the 2016 primaries, but if Hillary Clinton comes out the winner, I will not only vote for her, I will volunteer for her campaign.

[LondonReign2]

89. No, I'll vote for a Democrat instead

[MissDeeds]

93. My thoughts exactly n/t

[Township75]

90. Yes and so would everyone else here

Ever notice how many people will bash a dem candidate but as soon as the repubs announce and promote their candidate we all unite behind our candidate? Happens every two - four years. We just need a face for the opposition like bush, mccaine romney etc. then our rabid foaming mouths will be directed towards that person not the den candidate whether it be Hillary or not

[MrMickeysMom]

147. I wouldn't be so sure about that...

Not because those here would not vote for a Democrat… but, because those here are more likely not to vote for anyone anymore, since it's broken.

[Township75]

152. Well I'll putnit this way

See how many posts here are saying that someone won't vote for Hillary?

If she gets the nod, see how many will say hey aren't voting for her 2 weeks before the election.

I would be surprised if any did unless they had a post count under 100 m

[MrMickeysMom]

197. I understood what you meant...

I believe unless we have some MAJOR change in party leadership, the cards are telling us that our choices given by the DCCC equals a pretty shitty one in 2016. How many years has that gone on? But, why even limit the consideration that a low post count here constitutes how a voter will think? Given the value of our votes, given no choice, how much of this stuff can we stomach?

Alternatively, is there anyone as concerned about those in the 1% and whether they need to vote or DO vote? No… you don't see much written in the MSM about that. The data, however, is extensive on why LOW incomes will vote or how they will define themselves. Now the 1% example of not valuing the vote is for a completely different reason. Why, when you can lobby, especially after the Citizen's United determined way to hide all your money, bother? Their method is far better than voting when you can suppress through propaganda and buy your politicians.

The right to vote fails when money trumps who comes who is placed on the ballot. After a while, even in this forum, we question and we protest by not showing up. Face it… it's happening and that means the high post counts here are going to be part of that unless something changes real soon.

[JohnnyLib2]

91. Yes, unless a magical and mystical Republican suddenly appears

[Coventina]

92. Of course I would.

I'm not a fan, but to support a Republican is unthinkable.

[MissDeeds]

94. No

I'll write in the Democrat of my choice.

[ladjf]

95. If she were to be nominated, I would vote for her with no enthusiasm whatsoever.

Four more years of weak leadership, but better than four years of Republican lunacy and sadism.

[sabrina 1]

105. Why would anyone do that? Vote against their own interests? This is exactly WHY we get candidates

WE don't want but Wall St does? She is not a candidate right now so if ever there was a time to let them know that they better start listening to the voters, it is now, by telling them outright 'NO' to your Corporate Candidates!

THIS is why things never change, they see people say 'I don't want this candidate, but I will vote for him/her if s/he is the candidate'. They only hear the last part of that sentence. That's all they care about. So you may as well say 'I don't expect my party to listen to me at all, they have a right not to listen and push whoever they want on me and I will simply comply with their wishes.'

And that is why they have zero respect for the voters.

At least now more and more people ARE saying 'no' so hopefully this will get their attention, that they can no longer take those votes for granted without listening to the voters at all.

No, is my answer. I will not ever support a Third Way candidate. Republican lite V Republican, not even a consideration.

[MissDeeds]

106. +1000

Could not agree more. We need to demand better.

[Myrina]

97. No

She's given me no reason, over the past 15 years, to think she would be anything other than a pro-corporate, pro-war, DINO.

[Paladin]

98. Rather than engage in purity pout which aids Republicans? Yes, of course I'd vote for her. (nt)

[99Forever]

99. NEVER

[Reter]

100. Never ever ever

Never.

[liberal N proud]

101. If she is nominated

Because I sure as hell will not vote for a fucking republican and voting for a third party is voting for a republican

[Laffy Kat]

103. I will vote for whomever my Party nominates.

That simple.

[otohara]

104. Yup

In a heartbeat

[PFunk]

107. No. Not even in the general

So lets hope the dems put up some better choices. Please!!!!

[CrispyQ]

108. If Clinton is the dem nominee then I will vote Green or write in a candidate.

We are constantly told that the worst democrat is better than the best republican*, and yet here we are with two parties that are not all that different on economic issues. Both serve Big Money, not The People. Can you really claim that you support equal/civil/gay rights if you don't support economic rights? Those very groups, women/minorities/gays, are the ones that suffer the most from economic inequality.


*I'm not saying Clinton is the worst dem, just repeating what the liberals are told by the center.

[Rybak187]

109. If my vote for her could make a difference yes if not no.

[onenote]

110. If she is the Democratic Party nominee of course I will

[lumberjack_jeff]

112. Of course. In your scenario, she's the democratic nominee.

But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[Orsino]

113. I will vote for Clinton...

...or any other Dem ticket--until they invent a Democrat who is somehow more corrupt than whatever corporate stooges the GOP is going to run.

[raygons]

114. no

[dawg]

115. Yes.

I will always vote for the Democratic nominee, unless:

1. The Republicans nominate someone more liberal than the Democratic nominee, or
2. A more-liberal third party candidate is consistently polling no more than 5% below, or actually above, the Democratic nominee


I suppose it is also theoretically possible that the Democrats could nominate someone I considered too left-wing, but that's not gonna' happen any time soon.

[Maedhros]

116. No. Hillary would represent a further continuation of Bush foreign policy.

I cannot abide killing more and more civilians for no reason.

[Iggo]

117. I always vote for the Democratic nominee in the General Election.

Not a chance I'll vote for Clinton in the Primary.

[rock]

119. Would I? Would I? Would I?

Peg leg! Peg leg! Peg leg!

(sorry for the punch line of a joke that's in bad taste, but I couldn't help myself!)

[Howler]

120. no

Never!

[CountAllVotes]

121. No

n/t

[LittleBlue]

122. Nope

I refuse to hold my nose for the party again. They have to do something for us this time. Or I'll stay home.

[beaglelover]

124. YES!!! nt

[Marrah_G]

125. I will vote against the republican candidate

[Carolina]

126. No, hell no

not ever!

[HereSince1628]

127. Hoping not to have to make that choice.

I believe social-liberalism & economic neo-liberalism within the same mind at best produces cognitive dissonance.

I think it is usually a mechanism to blunt the sense of personal responsibility for social problems that neo-liberalism creates.

[longship]

128. I feel free to say that Hillary is not running for any office.

So your question is irrelevant.

I suppose you are posting about the election that happens two years from now. For Christ sakes, we just finished an election. Why not give it fucking rest?

Most of the world puts together a national election in a few weeks. Take the UK for instance. Here in the monumentally stoooopid USA, people aren't happy unless we are in 24/7 campaign mode, day in and day out, year in and year out. It's perpetual. And it is nothing short of idiocy.

Relax. Go fishing. Watch a movie. Let 2016 happen when it happens. It is not important now.

[Starry Messenger]

129. Yes.

[SteveG]

130. If she is the nominee.

I will vote for a progressive candidate in the primaries, but if push comes to shove, and she is the nominee, I'd have to. Better her than any of the republican traitors.

[brooklynite]

131. Already plan to work for her...

...Folks are welcome to advocate for a more progressive candidate, provided they can show a path to winning the General Election with a more partisan, middle of the road electorate. Hillary has perfectly reasonable mainstream economic and social policy positions, and the vote on the Iraq war has long since been considered and decided on by Democratic voters who gave her as many votes as Barack Obama received in 2008. Given the prospective Republican choices, she's a solid candidate to run in November.

[2banon]

187. Oh, It seemed you have been working for her.. my mistake then. n/t

[brooklynite]

188. I'm not working for her, because she's not running yet...

What I AM doing is supporting READY FOR HILLARY, an independent group advocating for her to run and organizing support for her if she decides to. Same thing people here could be doing for Warren or Sanders...except very few seem to want to do more than dream about it.

[BlindTiresias]

132. No

[zappaman]

133. Of course I will if she is the Democratic nominee. n/t

[Louisiana1976]

134. Yes, even though I'd be holding my nose.

[mcar]

135. If she is the Democratic nominee

Yes.

[IdiocracyTheNewNorm]

136. No

She should not even be on the SCOTUS either. Her ties to Wall Street would devastating to America, we cant afford it or her.

[KinMd]

137. Which Republican, would you prefer to Hillary?

with both houses of congress very possibly Republican. Protests on the mall afterward won't amount to squat. I'm talking about the general election, in a primary vote for whoever you want.

[cry baby]

138. Of course. nt

[old guy]

139. Yes.

[mylye2222]

140. No Way!!!!

NO VOTE FOR A PERSON WHO SLEEPS WITH THE ENNEMY.

[tavernier]

141. Yes.

Many times. 😄

[joeybee12]

142. Yes...nt

[KamaAina]

143. Yup.

[loyalsister]

144. Yes

I am voting for the Democratic nominee, whoever that may be.

[L0oniX]

145. Fucking hell no ..and ..you can't afford to pay $1 to DU? Hey ...somebody pay the $1 for Prophet 451

[revmclaren]

146. Yes...

And so will 14 members of my family and 27 friends so far if she is the winner in the primary. They will vote for whoever the Democratic nomine is in the general election. My goal is to GTVO for 2016 as I did in the last 2 presidential elections. My record of getting 11 people to switch parties will be surpassed this election and my goal is 22 ... Double that of 2012.

[Adrahil]

149. Yes. Absolutely. And so should everyone here.

If you don't like her, by all means vote against her in the primary. But unless you want to inflict generational damage to this nation in the form of more conservative justices, hold your nose and vote.

[polichick]

150. Not sure.

[BlueJazz]

151. Depends on who is there.

[JEB]

154. Only if her running mate is Henry Kissinger.

snark.

[daredtowork]

155. Nope

Triangulation infuriated me.

I hate the idea of constantly running to the right to appease an elusive middle while abandoning the left. I also don't like how Hillary kept trying to please her critics to the right by acting tougher. I think she was on board with her husband's New Democrat activities re: NAFTA, dismantling welfare, and dropping universal healthcare. To please the critics, Hillary has portrayed herself increasingly as a warhawk and done nothing to ameliorate the suffering of the poor. Her family makes no bones about enriching themselves off their name and their "rolodex", but their policies implicitly lay judgment on people who will never had those kind of opportunities.

In short I will never vote for Hillary because she appears to me to be a Republican in Democrat's clothing.

I'm eager to vote for the first woman president, but it's not going to be Hillary.

[Martin Eden]

156. NEVER in a Democratic primary

There are many reasons I don't want Hillary Clinton to be president, but she is automatically disqualified because I will NEVER vote in a Democratic primary for anyone who voted for the IWR in October 2002 that gave GW Bush the green light to invade Iraq. This is my only rock-solid unshakeable litmus test (but I also can't support Hillary or any other neoliberal third way sellout).

Having said that, I will vote for the Democratic presidential nominee in the general election (including Hillary) unless my state of Illinois is safely in the blue column and I really like a 3rd party candidate.

What I'd really like is Instant Runoff Voting.

[hrmjustin]

157. Puma is alive and well according to some of the responses I see.

I hated it in 2008 and hate it now.

[PeteSelman]

158. It depends on the other Republican running.

That's the bind they have us in, vote for the Republican or vote for the absolutely insane Republican.

I don't know if I'd vote for her. It all seems so hopeless.

[unrepentant progress]

163. For me it comes down to the statistics

If, in my state, Hillary and Republican X are running neck and neck, then I will vote Hillary just to watch this red state turn blue.

However, if Hillary is either far behind, or far ahead, of Republican X, then I will do a write-in for Third Party Z because there is no way my single vote will make a difference. I do so in the hopes that Z will finally be accorded a damn slot on the next election's ballot. That way maybe Z will start having some luck winning local and state elections.

If I don't like Z, and it's statistically likely my vote won't count (which is the norm in this red state) then I will simply not vote for President.

Sad, but true, the electoral system pretty much guarantees most people's votes don't count. That's the case if you are in a solid red state or a solid blue state. If your state is deep purple, it all comes down to rural vs. urban turnout.

[LawDeeDah]

159. Nope, never. I don't vote for Republicans.

[northoftheborder]

160. Yes.

[Duckhunter935]

161. leave it blank

down ballot would be the dems. We have too many good people then a Bush or Clinton. Warren on the other hand, a big yes.

[RandySF]

164. Of course not. I'll vote Republican just because Hillary is not everything I want.

*sarcasm*

[YoungDemCA]

192. Ha!

Good one!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

166. If she's the nominee yes.

Not my first choice but I've seen too much damage by Republican presidents to give another one the chance.

[Agnosticsherbet]

167. Yes, because I will vote for the best of the candidates that can win the general.

That precludes voting for a Republican.
No third party can win in the General election in this country.

[H. Cromwell]

170. NOPE

Not even close

[hughee99]

171. Not in a primary.

But I could in the General election.

[Drunken Irishman]

176. Not in the primaries...but yeah. Probably.

[Man from Pickens]

178. No

I'm done with being forced to accept war after war after war while nothing serious is done about the real problems here at home. I expect nothing but status quo from Hillary and will not vote for that.

[woo me with science]

179. No. She is a menace to democracy.

In this united, bipartisan oligarchy pretending to be a democracy, she is the Blue Team's poster candidate for authoritarian corporatism and the dismantling of the very foundations of our democracy.

[on point]

180. No. Her Iraq war vote disqualfied her permently. She is a fake

[get the red out]

181. Yes

Supreme Court, and reproductive rights, to keep the Republicans from completing their plans to end any small hint of democracy forever.

[mmonk]

183. I haven't worked out a worse case scenario for 2016 yet.

[2banon]

186. Nope.. I'll vote down ballot and leave that one blank if need be.

[Hotler]

189. Fuck no! n/t

[YoungDemCA]

191. Yes

nt

[Aerows]

193. Yes

But there would be much nose-holding and I hope it doesn't come to that.

[Comrade Grumpy]

194. No. I vote in a non-competitive state. I would vote for the Green or the Socialist.

[joshcryer]

195. I don't carry water for republicans.

So of course I'll vote for her.

[hifiguy]

196. NO!

Every other Democrat on the ballot yes. HRC, never.

[MissB]

198. In the primary? No.

General, yes.

[Dirty Socialist]

199. Yes

But I am not sure about the primary.

[silvershadow]

203. Not a chance. nt

[Behind the Aegis]

204. Yes.

I can't imagine a third-party candidate or republican who would be better than most democratic candidates.

[VanillaRhapsody]

207. thanks for this thread....it proves my point how many are not really Democrats there are on DU

[Prophet 451]

208. I don't think that's fair

I reead it as there are a lot of idealists who are unsatisfied by a theoretical Hillary candidacy.

[VanillaRhapsody]

209. too bad......if they cannot commit to voting for whomever wins our Primary

Then they just became Independent by default.

If the recent election proves nothing else it is........United we stand.....divided we fall. Our candidates shunned our leader and got their asses handedto them.......and some of the blame falls squarely on the attacks from fair weather "Democrats".....ensuring that candidates feared supporting the President publically. And thus we lost. As we will every midterm....where we lose ground on all the Progress we made. Whenyou have to fear attacks from the Right and the far left......well youcan understand their timidity....

[Prophet 451]

210. I can't commit to voting for her

I'm British so I don't get to vote. If I could, I'd vote for the furthest left candidate in the primary and then for whomever got the Dem nomination in the general on the grounds that, no matter who it was, they'd be better than whatever frothing madman the Repubs run.

[VanillaRhapsody]

211. sorry but you are also not a Democrat..

And shoukd not expect actual Dems to accept your positions without that caveat attached.

[RiverLover]

213. You've got it backwards, it's Hillary who is not a true Democrat.

That's why people won't vote for her. I would vote for her if I was low information, or stuck my head in the sand and only voted for the "D" & not actions.

[VanillaRhapsody]

223. bullshit...Independents DO NOT get to tell Democrats what to do...

If you are not committed to vote for the Dem Primary winner....YOU are not one either. That would make you an Independent.

That commitment to your fellow Democrats decision....THAT is the action!

I for one do NOT want to see what happens if the Republicans own all three branches!

[Prophet 451]

224. Well, no, I'm British

If I were American, I would be registered Democratic but I've never asked anyone to accept my positions on anything.

[VanillaRhapsody]

225. but you are not....so your opinions are not so important to us...WE decide.

you are an outsider no matter how you slice it.

[Katashi_itto]

212. this is a hoot.Coming from someone who is Pro NSA,

Pro 1984 this is a hoot.

[Chemisse]

218. Why are there so many 'no' responses?

Unless the Republican candidate is somewhere close to the political center (VERY unlikely), the very worst of Democratic candidates is going to be a better choice.

If you fail to vote in the general elections, and we wind up with a Ted Cruz-type president, your bitching and moaning will be meaningless.

Your opinion means nothing if you don't vote.

[DFW]

219. Good question

It's easy to yell "corporatist!" It's less fun when you consider that a Republican President will put new members of the Supreme Court in place to cement the erosion of liberties and voting rights (what ones we have left!) that was started under Cheney (realistically--under Reagan). That, to me, trumps any "no way Hillary for 2016" argument I can think of.

Plus, Hillary has not declared her candidacy for the Democratic nomination, and nor has anyone else that I know of. I am not going to work myself into a panic over it for at least a year.

[DFW]

220. If she's our nominee? Hell, yeah, I will.

If it means the difference between a few more like Steve Breyer or Sonya Sotomayor on the Supreme Court as opposed to a few more like Scalia or Alito, that is SO important to me as to trump all other reservations I have about her. I wouldn't even have to hold my nose. Just look at the probable list of maniacs the Republicans have to choose from. Not a sane realist amnog them. If that doesn't make it obvious, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[bemildred]

221. No, let the Republicans take credit for Republican policies. nt

[sendero]

222. Not a fan.....

.... of either of the Clintons for reasons every honest person here is familiar with.

I'd have to think about it. Not voting at all is a pretty serious matter. I generally vote, even when it is a "lesser of two evils" situation.

But I might sit it out, I just might. Probably depends on just how odious the Republican nominee is. Some are worse than others you know.

[Prophet 451]

226. Please don't sit it out

If it helps, think of the raving madmen liable to get the (R) nomination; Rand Paul , for example.