Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Prophet 451

(9,796 posts)
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 02:23 AM Nov 2014

Would You Vote For Hillary?

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.

226 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Would You Vote For Hillary? (Original Post) Prophet 451 Nov 2014 OP
I don't plan on it. I will leave that place blank on my ballot. n/t CaliforniaPeggy Nov 2014 #1
no n/t jaysunb Nov 2014 #2
Not a chance. AtomicKitten Nov 2014 #3
I'm going to wait and see who throws thier hat in the ring. KMOD Nov 2014 #4
If she gets the nod, a lot depends on who she's running against, but... TreasonousBastard Nov 2014 #5
The Republican would doubtless be a frothing madman Prophet 451 Nov 2014 #7
Still 'No' peacebird Nov 2014 #58
I hope there aren't enough of you to provide some ... 11 Bravo Nov 2014 #96
I hope we get some good candidates in the primary, & HRC isn't the nominee peacebird Nov 2014 #123
So do I, but that doesn't address your statement that you ... 11 Bravo Nov 2014 #182
no way. on point Nov 2014 #6
No! sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #8
Nope. A little wear and tear on the nose I can manage. But, Hillary? No thanks. Tierra_y_Libertad Nov 2014 #9
yes vadermike Nov 2014 #10
WhyTF should it be assumed Hillary gets the nomination?! Special Prosciuto Nov 2014 #11
polling numbers.. VanillaRhapsody Nov 2014 #206
If she's the nominee fadedrose Nov 2014 #12
we are indeed screwed. right wing reactionary war hawks have been running things long enough.. n/t 2banon Nov 2014 #185
Without hesitation ... NanceGreggs Nov 2014 #13
Although we do have a right to expect, AND DEMAND, Ken Burch Nov 2014 #35
Well, I'm not sure ... NanceGreggs Nov 2014 #148
Not not vote, but have a right to keep expecting. Ken Burch Nov 2014 #153
Not agreed. n/t NanceGreggs Nov 2014 #169
What does that mean? Ken Burch Nov 2014 #172
I see no point ... NanceGreggs Nov 2014 #173
So tell me what you DO mean, then? Ken Burch Nov 2014 #174
As I've already said ... NanceGreggs Nov 2014 #175
I rewrote the post you were offended by. Sorry. Ken Burch Nov 2014 #177
Excuse me, Ken ... NanceGreggs Nov 2014 #200
You could have responded to the post by saying "no. you're wrong. What I ACTUALLY believe is..." Ken Burch Nov 2014 #201
I am not being dismissive of the topic. NanceGreggs Nov 2014 #202
Deliberate obtuse response deserves full ignore option Ken. 2banon Nov 2014 #184
You should include the environment in that list. Chemisse Nov 2014 #214
You're right. n/t. Ken Burch Nov 2014 #215
BIG +1 ~nt RiverLover Nov 2014 #216
I would love to see Warren, Sherrod Brown or jen63 Nov 2014 #14
I would be an idiot not to since otherwise I'd be helping the Rethug. n/t pnwmom Nov 2014 #15
The exact reason I would too. Liberal Lolita Nov 2014 #21
I will vote for whoever is our nominee MFM008 Nov 2014 #16
From what I've read here Union Scribe Nov 2014 #17
I think a generic Democrat will easily beat anyone the GOP nominates. Doesn't matter if its Hillary cascadiance Nov 2014 #205
can't make that predicition this far out nt msongs Nov 2014 #18
In the fall, if nominated. Ken Burch Nov 2014 #19
6) Don't Want a Theocracy AndyTiedye Nov 2014 #30
That, too. Ken Burch Nov 2014 #33
And Senator Hillary was with The Family in DC. I don't want theocracy overt or theocracy covert. merrily Nov 2014 #39
Only if I move to a purple state. ZombieHorde Nov 2014 #20
If she's still on the ballot when we have the Primary elections, probably.... Hekate Nov 2014 #22
What are you talking about? ieoeja Nov 2014 #118
In the primary, hell no. In the general, yes. n/t demmiblue Nov 2014 #23
Yes Hyper_Eye Nov 2014 #24
NO nt Raine Nov 2014 #25
Without hesitation. LostInAnomie Nov 2014 #26
No! Pastiche423 Nov 2014 #27
Yes gwheezie Nov 2014 #28
Nope davidpdx Nov 2014 #29
Yes, In the General Election AndyTiedye Nov 2014 #31
Yes GreatGazoo Nov 2014 #32
No RiverLover Nov 2014 #34
As the nominee... Yes Sherman A1 Nov 2014 #36
Only in a general election n/t eridani Nov 2014 #37
I have no clue why any DUer has to take a loyalty oath before she even commits to running. merrily Nov 2014 #38
Not a loyalty oath, not a trick question, not a trap Prophet 451 Nov 2014 #41
Not really an explanation. Everyone who asks any question that is not purely rhetorical is curious. merrily Nov 2014 #47
Please stop trying to second-guess me Prophet 451 Nov 2014 #53
First guess or second, I never tried any guess what your motives or reasons might be. merrily Nov 2014 #60
She would be the lesser of two evils. So yes, but I B Calm Nov 2014 #40
In a perfect world, NO. I would vote for myself or someone just like me. In the real world, YES. n/t pampango Nov 2014 #42
This message was self-deleted by its author myrna minx Nov 2014 #43
Not even if Hell froze over. Katashi_itto Nov 2014 #44
NO to any Boomer. GeorgeGist Nov 2014 #45
The youngest boomers just turned 50 BeyondGeography Nov 2014 #51
Well, politics is a game for the middle-aged Prophet 451 Nov 2014 #55
Xers are middle aged, not Boomers Reter Nov 2014 #102
I hate to break it to you, but age is being defined down in this country BeyondGeography Nov 2014 #111
Middle-aged means roughly halfway to death Reter Nov 2014 #165
As a practical matter, if you call someone 38 to 42 middle-aged BeyondGeography Nov 2014 #168
"No to any boomer"? What a critical thinker. I hate to burst your bubble, but Elizabeth Warren is still_one Nov 2014 #61
Yes justiceischeap Nov 2014 #46
No - If the Democratic Party fails to grow a spine over the next avebury Nov 2014 #48
So there only three candidates you would support... brooklynite Nov 2014 #190
Yes, but it reserve the vote for someone leftier if he or she can show leadership. aikoaiko Nov 2014 #49
Nope, the party throws away my vote with such a nomination and further, I will resent it. TheKentuckian Nov 2014 #50
Hillary has not even said, officially, what her platform and objectives are. Just has some PACs. djean111 Nov 2014 #52
No. Nt newfie11 Nov 2014 #54
primary, depending. general, yes. bullimiami Nov 2014 #56
No peacebird Nov 2014 #57
Yawn.............poll number 15 on HIllary leftofcool Nov 2014 #59
I will vote for the Democratic Party nominee for President. baldguy Nov 2014 #62
But saying NO to a fake dem, a DINO, deserves the highest honor. ~nt RiverLover Nov 2014 #63
Of course, that's not the topic of discussion. baldguy Nov 2014 #68
absolutely. If for nothing else the SC, because if the republicans win the next election the course still_one Nov 2014 #65
Yes...I will vote for the Democratic candidate. Sancho Nov 2014 #64
Just look at the SC justices appointed by Democrats verses republicans. Is it any clearer? still_one Nov 2014 #66
If she is the Dem nominee, yes. JoePhilly Nov 2014 #67
Only if I had to and it would take a lot of coercion. hobbit709 Nov 2014 #69
I can't give a straight yes/no answer until I hear what she plans to run on. From her mouth. Vinca Nov 2014 #70
Her record and history have already spoken. LawDeeDah Nov 2014 #162
I'll invoke the 5th on this one. nt LWolf Nov 2014 #71
Only in a general election krawhitham Nov 2014 #72
No bigwillq Nov 2014 #73
Yes. theHandpuppet Nov 2014 #74
I loathe her. But perhaps yes. SCOTUS. n/t Smarmie Doofus Nov 2014 #75
Yes I would and it is sad to see puma is still here. hrmjustin Nov 2014 #76
Of course Hari Seldon Nov 2014 #77
Holding my nose.... Stellar Nov 2014 #78
There isn't a clamp made that could hold my nose enough to vote for her. nt Javaman Nov 2014 #79
No! mindem Nov 2014 #80
Asked and answered four times in the last two weeks. nt. NCTraveler Nov 2014 #81
I'm a Democrat Bettie Nov 2014 #82
No Oilwellian Nov 2014 #83
if she is the nominee, I am voting for her. why is this even a question? nt littlewolf Nov 2014 #84
Yes, already did in 2008 along with 18 million other voters GusBob Nov 2014 #85
I will vote for the Democratic Party nominee. MineralMan Nov 2014 #86
Never. LuvNewcastle Nov 2014 #87
I would, and without holding my nose. CBHagman Nov 2014 #88
No, I'll vote for a Democrat instead LondonReign2 Nov 2014 #89
My thoughts exactly n/t MissDeeds Nov 2014 #93
Yes and so would everyone else here Township75 Nov 2014 #90
I wouldn't be so sure about that... MrMickeysMom Nov 2014 #147
Well I'll putnit this way Township75 Nov 2014 #152
I understood what you meant... MrMickeysMom Nov 2014 #197
Yes, unless a magical and mystical Republican suddenly appears JohnnyLib2 Nov 2014 #91
Of course I would. Coventina Nov 2014 #92
No MissDeeds Nov 2014 #94
If she were to be nominated, I would vote for her with no enthusiasm whatsoever. ladjf Nov 2014 #95
Why would anyone do that? Vote against their own interests? This is exactly WHY we get candidates sabrina 1 Nov 2014 #105
+1000 MissDeeds Nov 2014 #106
No Myrina Nov 2014 #97
Rather than engage in purity pout which aids Republicans? Yes, of course I'd vote for her. (nt) Paladin Nov 2014 #98
NEVER 99Forever Nov 2014 #99
Never ever ever Reter Nov 2014 #100
If she is nominated liberal N proud Nov 2014 #101
I will vote for whomever my Party nominates. Laffy Kat Nov 2014 #103
Yup otohara Nov 2014 #104
No. Not even in the general PFunk Nov 2014 #107
If Clinton is the dem nominee then I will vote Green or write in a candidate. CrispyQ Nov 2014 #108
If my vote for her could make a difference yes if not no. Rybak187 Nov 2014 #109
If she is the Democratic Party nominee of course I will onenote Nov 2014 #110
Of course. In your scenario, she's the democratic nominee. lumberjack_jeff Nov 2014 #112
I will vote for Clinton... Orsino Nov 2014 #113
no raygons Nov 2014 #114
Yes. dawg Nov 2014 #115
No. Hillary would represent a further continuation of Bush foreign policy. Maedhros Nov 2014 #116
I always vote for the Democratic nominee in the General Election. Iggo Nov 2014 #117
Would I? Would I? Would I? rock Nov 2014 #119
no Howler Nov 2014 #120
No CountAllVotes Nov 2014 #121
Nope LittleBlue Nov 2014 #122
YES!!! nt beaglelover Nov 2014 #124
I will vote against the republican candidate Marrah_G Nov 2014 #125
No, hell no Carolina Nov 2014 #126
Hoping not to have to make that choice. HereSince1628 Nov 2014 #127
I feel free to say that Hillary is not running for any office. longship Nov 2014 #128
Yes. Starry Messenger Nov 2014 #129
If she is the nominee. SteveG Nov 2014 #130
Already plan to work for her... brooklynite Nov 2014 #131
Oh, It seemed you have been working for her.. my mistake then. n/t 2banon Nov 2014 #187
I'm not working for her, because she's not running yet... brooklynite Nov 2014 #188
No BlindTiresias Nov 2014 #132
Of course I will if she is the Democratic nominee. n/t zappaman Nov 2014 #133
Yes, even though I'd be holding my nose. Louisiana1976 Nov 2014 #134
If she is the Democratic nominee mcar Nov 2014 #135
No IdiocracyTheNewNorm Nov 2014 #136
Which Republican, would you prefer to Hillary? KinMd Nov 2014 #137
Of course. nt cry baby Nov 2014 #138
Yes. old guy Nov 2014 #139
No Way!!!! mylye2222 Nov 2014 #140
Yes. tavernier Nov 2014 #141
Yes...nt joeybee12 Nov 2014 #142
Yup. KamaAina Nov 2014 #143
Yes loyalsister Nov 2014 #144
Fucking hell no ..and ..you can't afford to pay $1 to DU? Hey ...somebody pay the $1 for Prophet 451 L0oniX Nov 2014 #145
Yes... revmclaren Nov 2014 #146
Yes. Absolutely. And so should everyone here. Adrahil Nov 2014 #149
Not sure. polichick Nov 2014 #150
Depends on who is there. BlueJazz Nov 2014 #151
Only if her running mate is Henry Kissinger. JEB Nov 2014 #154
Nope daredtowork Nov 2014 #155
NEVER in a Democratic primary Martin Eden Nov 2014 #156
Puma is alive and well according to some of the responses I see. hrmjustin Nov 2014 #157
It depends on the other Republican running. PeteSelman Nov 2014 #158
For me it comes down to the statistics unrepentant progress Nov 2014 #163
Nope, never. I don't vote for Republicans. LawDeeDah Nov 2014 #159
Yes. northoftheborder Nov 2014 #160
leave it blank Duckhunter935 Nov 2014 #161
Of course not. I'll vote Republican just because Hillary is not everything I want. RandySF Nov 2014 #164
Ha! YoungDemCA Nov 2014 #192
If she's the nominee yes. Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Nov 2014 #166
Yes, because I will vote for the best of the candidates that can win the general. Agnosticsherbet Nov 2014 #167
NOPE H. Cromwell Nov 2014 #170
Not in a primary. hughee99 Nov 2014 #171
Not in the primaries...but yeah. Probably. Drunken Irishman Nov 2014 #176
No Man from Pickens Nov 2014 #178
No. She is a menace to democracy. woo me with science Nov 2014 #179
No. Her Iraq war vote disqualfied her permently. She is a fake on point Nov 2014 #180
Yes get the red out Nov 2014 #181
I haven't worked out a worse case scenario for 2016 yet. mmonk Nov 2014 #183
Nope.. I'll vote down ballot and leave that one blank if need be. 2banon Nov 2014 #186
Fuck no! n/t Hotler Nov 2014 #189
Yes YoungDemCA Nov 2014 #191
Yes Aerows Nov 2014 #193
No. I vote in a non-competitive state. I would vote for the Green or the Socialist. Comrade Grumpy Nov 2014 #194
I don't carry water for republicans. joshcryer Nov 2014 #195
NO! hifiguy Nov 2014 #196
In the primary? No. MissB Nov 2014 #198
Yes Dirty Socialist Nov 2014 #199
Not a chance. nt silvershadow Nov 2014 #203
Yes. Behind the Aegis Nov 2014 #204
thanks for this thread....it proves my point how many are not really Democrats there are on DU VanillaRhapsody Nov 2014 #207
I don't think that's fair Prophet 451 Nov 2014 #208
too bad......if they cannot commit to voting for whomever wins our Primary VanillaRhapsody Nov 2014 #209
I can't commit to voting for her Prophet 451 Nov 2014 #210
sorry but you are also not a Democrat.. VanillaRhapsody Nov 2014 #211
You've got it backwards, it's Hillary who is not a true Democrat. RiverLover Nov 2014 #213
bullshit...Independents DO NOT get to tell Democrats what to do... VanillaRhapsody Nov 2014 #223
Well, no, I'm British Prophet 451 Nov 2014 #224
but you are not....so your opinions are not so important to us...WE decide. VanillaRhapsody Nov 2014 #225
this is a hoot.Coming from someone who is Pro NSA, Katashi_itto Nov 2014 #212
This message was self-deleted by its author Warren DeMontague Nov 2014 #217
Why are there so many 'no' responses? Chemisse Nov 2014 #218
Good question DFW Nov 2014 #219
If she's our nominee? Hell, yeah, I will. DFW Nov 2014 #220
No, let the Republicans take credit for Republican policies. nt bemildred Nov 2014 #221
Not a fan..... sendero Nov 2014 #222
Please don't sit it out Prophet 451 Nov 2014 #226
 

KMOD

(7,906 posts)
4. I'm going to wait and see who throws thier hat in the ring.
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 02:34 AM
Nov 2014

Then I'll wait for the primaries.

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

TreasonousBastard

(43,049 posts)
5. If she gets the nod, a lot depends on who she's running against, but...
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 02:46 AM
Nov 2014

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

(9,796 posts)
7. The Republican would doubtless be a frothing madman
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 02:47 AM
Nov 2014

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.

11 Bravo

(23,922 posts)
96. I hope there aren't enough of you to provide some ...
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 10:44 AM
Nov 2014

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

11 Bravo

(23,922 posts)
182. So do I, but that doesn't address your statement that you ...
Fri Nov 14, 2014, 03:15 PM
Nov 2014

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.

vadermike

(1,415 posts)
10. yes
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 02:52 AM
Nov 2014

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.......

 

2banon

(7,321 posts)
185. we are indeed screwed. right wing reactionary war hawks have been running things long enough.. n/t
Fri Nov 14, 2014, 03:26 PM
Nov 2014

NanceGreggs

(27,813 posts)
13. Without hesitation ...
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 03:09 AM
Nov 2014

... 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

(50,254 posts)
35. Although we do have a right to expect, AND DEMAND,
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 06:09 AM
Nov 2014

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

(27,813 posts)
148. Well, I'm not sure ...
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 10:52 PM
Nov 2014

... 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

(50,254 posts)
153. Not not vote, but have a right to keep expecting.
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 11:08 PM
Nov 2014

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?

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
172. What does that mean?
Fri Nov 14, 2014, 01:29 AM
Nov 2014

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

(27,813 posts)
173. I see no point ...
Fri Nov 14, 2014, 01:37 AM
Nov 2014

... 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

(50,254 posts)
174. So tell me what you DO mean, then?
Fri Nov 14, 2014, 03:51 AM
Nov 2014

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

(27,813 posts)
175. As I've already said ...
Fri Nov 14, 2014, 03:59 AM
Nov 2014

... 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

(50,254 posts)
177. I rewrote the post you were offended by. Sorry.
Fri Nov 14, 2014, 04:09 AM
Nov 2014

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

You should provide a better explanation.

NanceGreggs

(27,813 posts)
200. Excuse me, Ken ...
Sat Nov 15, 2014, 03:48 AM
Nov 2014

... 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

(50,254 posts)
201. You could have responded to the post by saying "no. you're wrong. What I ACTUALLY believe is..."
Sat Nov 15, 2014, 03:54 AM
Nov 2014

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

(27,813 posts)
202. I am not being dismissive of the topic.
Sat Nov 15, 2014, 03:58 AM
Nov 2014

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.

Chemisse

(30,802 posts)
214. You should include the environment in that list.
Sat Nov 15, 2014, 07:01 AM
Nov 2014

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

jen63

(813 posts)
14. I would love to see Warren, Sherrod Brown or
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 03:17 AM
Nov 2014

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.

MFM008

(19,803 posts)
16. I will vote for whoever is our nominee
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 03:20 AM
Nov 2014

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

Union Scribe

(7,099 posts)
17. From what I've read here
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 03:21 AM
Nov 2014

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

(19,537 posts)
205. I think a generic Democrat will easily beat anyone the GOP nominates. Doesn't matter if its Hillary
Sat Nov 15, 2014, 04:06 AM
Nov 2014

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".

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
19. In the fall, if nominated.
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 03:38 AM
Nov 2014

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.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
33. That, too.
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 05:58 AM
Nov 2014

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

(45,251 posts)
39. And Senator Hillary was with The Family in DC. I don't want theocracy overt or theocracy covert.
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 06:30 AM
Nov 2014

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

(29,047 posts)
20. Only if I move to a purple state.
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 03:38 AM
Nov 2014

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

Hekate

(90,478 posts)
22. If she's still on the ballot when we have the Primary elections, probably....
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 03:53 AM
Nov 2014

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

(9,748 posts)
118. What are you talking about?
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 12:31 PM
Nov 2014

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.

AndyTiedye

(23,500 posts)
31. Yes, In the General Election
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 05:35 AM
Nov 2014

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.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
38. I have no clue why any DUer has to take a loyalty oath before she even commits to running.
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 06:27 AM
Nov 2014

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

(9,796 posts)
41. Not a loyalty oath, not a trick question, not a trap
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 06:55 AM
Nov 2014

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

And that was a great movie.

merrily

(45,251 posts)
47. Not really an explanation. Everyone who asks any question that is not purely rhetorical is curious.
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 07:20 AM
Nov 2014

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

(9,796 posts)
53. Please stop trying to second-guess me
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 07:43 AM
Nov 2014

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

merrily

(45,251 posts)
60. First guess or second, I never tried any guess what your motives or reasons might be.
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 08:07 AM
Nov 2014

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.

Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Prophet 451

(9,796 posts)
55. Well, politics is a game for the middle-aged
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 07:45 AM
Nov 2014

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

BeyondGeography

(39,337 posts)
111. I hate to break it to you, but age is being defined down in this country
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 11:53 AM
Nov 2014

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

(2,188 posts)
165. Middle-aged means roughly halfway to death
Fri Nov 14, 2014, 12:09 AM
Nov 2014

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

(39,337 posts)
168. As a practical matter, if you call someone 38 to 42 middle-aged
Fri Nov 14, 2014, 12:29 AM
Nov 2014

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

(92,048 posts)
61. "No to any boomer"? What a critical thinker. I hate to burst your bubble, but Elizabeth Warren is
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 08:09 AM
Nov 2014

a boomer

avebury

(10,951 posts)
48. No - If the Democratic Party fails to grow a spine over the next
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 07:24 AM
Nov 2014

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

(94,244 posts)
190. So there only three candidates you would support...
Fri Nov 14, 2014, 03:48 PM
Nov 2014

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

(34,153 posts)
49. Yes, but it reserve the vote for someone leftier if he or she can show leadership.
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 07:29 AM
Nov 2014

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

TheKentuckian

(25,011 posts)
50. Nope, the party throws away my vote with such a nomination and further, I will resent it.
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 07:35 AM
Nov 2014

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

(14,255 posts)
52. Hillary has not even said, officially, what her platform and objectives are. Just has some PACs.
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 07:42 AM
Nov 2014

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).

 

baldguy

(36,649 posts)
62. I will vote for the Democratic Party nominee for President.
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 08:11 AM
Nov 2014

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.

 

baldguy

(36,649 posts)
68. Of course, that's not the topic of discussion.
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 08:40 AM
Nov 2014

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

still_one

(92,048 posts)
65. absolutely. If for nothing else the SC, because if the republicans win the next election the course
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 08:20 AM
Nov 2014

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

(9,067 posts)
64. Yes...I will vote for the Democratic candidate.
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 08:17 AM
Nov 2014

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.

Vinca

(50,233 posts)
70. I can't give a straight yes/no answer until I hear what she plans to run on. From her mouth.
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 08:58 AM
Nov 2014

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

(1,596 posts)
162. Her record and history have already spoken.
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 11:32 PM
Nov 2014

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.

krawhitham

(4,636 posts)
72. Only in a general election
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 09:15 AM
Nov 2014

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

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
76. Yes I would and it is sad to see puma is still here.
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 09:26 AM
Nov 2014

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

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
81. Asked and answered four times in the last two weeks. nt.
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 09:42 AM
Nov 2014

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

GusBob

(7,286 posts)
85. Yes, already did in 2008 along with 18 million other voters
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 09:51 AM
Nov 2014

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

(146,241 posts)
86. I will vote for the Democratic Party nominee.
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 10:12 AM
Nov 2014

I will always do that in any presidential election.

I am a Democrat.

CBHagman

(16,979 posts)
88. I would, and without holding my nose.
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 10:16 AM
Nov 2014

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.

Township75

(3,535 posts)
90. Yes and so would everyone else here
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 10:17 AM
Nov 2014

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

(20,453 posts)
147. I wouldn't be so sure about that...
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 10:37 PM
Nov 2014

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

(3,535 posts)
152. Well I'll putnit this way
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 11:06 PM
Nov 2014

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

(20,453 posts)
197. I understood what you meant...
Fri Nov 14, 2014, 07:21 PM
Nov 2014

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.

ladjf

(17,320 posts)
95. If she were to be nominated, I would vote for her with no enthusiasm whatsoever.
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 10:44 AM
Nov 2014

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

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
105. Why would anyone do that? Vote against their own interests? This is exactly WHY we get candidates
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 11:21 AM
Nov 2014

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.

Myrina

(12,296 posts)
97. No
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 10:48 AM
Nov 2014

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.

liberal N proud

(60,331 posts)
101. If she is nominated
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 10:53 AM
Nov 2014

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

CrispyQ

(36,408 posts)
108. If Clinton is the dem nominee then I will vote Green or write in a candidate.
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 11:31 AM
Nov 2014

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.

 

lumberjack_jeff

(33,224 posts)
112. Of course. In your scenario, she's the democratic nominee.
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 12:03 PM
Nov 2014
But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees


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

Orsino

(37,428 posts)
113. I will vote for Clinton...
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 12:07 PM
Nov 2014

...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.

dawg

(10,620 posts)
115. Yes.
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 12:23 PM
Nov 2014

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

(10,007 posts)
116. No. Hillary would represent a further continuation of Bush foreign policy.
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 12:25 PM
Nov 2014

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

Iggo

(47,532 posts)
117. I always vote for the Democratic nominee in the General Election.
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 12:26 PM
Nov 2014

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

rock

(13,218 posts)
119. Would I? Would I? Would I?
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 12:48 PM
Nov 2014

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!)

 

LittleBlue

(10,362 posts)
122. Nope
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 01:10 PM
Nov 2014

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

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
127. Hoping not to have to make that choice.
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 07:10 PM
Nov 2014

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

(40,416 posts)
128. I feel free to say that Hillary is not running for any office.
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 07:13 PM
Nov 2014

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.

SteveG

(3,109 posts)
130. If she is the nominee.
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 07:22 PM
Nov 2014

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

(94,244 posts)
131. Already plan to work for her...
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 07:23 PM
Nov 2014

...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.

brooklynite

(94,244 posts)
188. I'm not working for her, because she's not running yet...
Fri Nov 14, 2014, 03:42 PM
Nov 2014

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.

 
136. No
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 07:30 PM
Nov 2014

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

(966 posts)
137. Which Republican, would you prefer to Hillary?
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 07:34 PM
Nov 2014

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.

 

L0oniX

(31,493 posts)
145. Fucking hell no ..and ..you can't afford to pay $1 to DU? Hey ...somebody pay the $1 for Prophet 451
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 08:32 PM
Nov 2014

revmclaren

(2,497 posts)
146. Yes...
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 10:33 PM
Nov 2014

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

(13,340 posts)
149. Yes. Absolutely. And so should everyone here.
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 10:55 PM
Nov 2014

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.

daredtowork

(3,732 posts)
155. Nope
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 11:17 PM
Nov 2014

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

(12,838 posts)
156. NEVER in a Democratic primary
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 11:17 PM
Nov 2014

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

(71,265 posts)
157. Puma is alive and well according to some of the responses I see.
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 11:18 PM
Nov 2014

I hated it in 2008 and hate it now.

PeteSelman

(1,508 posts)
158. It depends on the other Republican running.
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 11:21 PM
Nov 2014

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.

163. For me it comes down to the statistics
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 11:53 PM
Nov 2014

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.

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
161. leave it blank
Thu Nov 13, 2014, 11:30 PM
Nov 2014

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.

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(107,632 posts)
166. If she's the nominee yes.
Fri Nov 14, 2014, 12:11 AM
Nov 2014

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

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
167. Yes, because I will vote for the best of the candidates that can win the general.
Fri Nov 14, 2014, 12:17 AM
Nov 2014

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



 

Man from Pickens

(1,713 posts)
178. No
Fri Nov 14, 2014, 04:50 AM
Nov 2014

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

(32,139 posts)
179. No. She is a menace to democracy.
Fri Nov 14, 2014, 05:29 AM
Nov 2014

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.

get the red out

(13,460 posts)
181. Yes
Fri Nov 14, 2014, 06:45 AM
Nov 2014

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

Behind the Aegis

(53,912 posts)
204. Yes.
Sat Nov 15, 2014, 04:03 AM
Nov 2014

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

Prophet 451

(9,796 posts)
208. I don't think that's fair
Sat Nov 15, 2014, 04:54 AM
Nov 2014

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

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
209. too bad......if they cannot commit to voting for whomever wins our Primary
Sat Nov 15, 2014, 04:57 AM
Nov 2014

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

(9,796 posts)
210. I can't commit to voting for her
Sat Nov 15, 2014, 05:00 AM
Nov 2014

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

(21,115 posts)
211. sorry but you are also not a Democrat..
Sat Nov 15, 2014, 05:13 AM
Nov 2014

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

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
213. You've got it backwards, it's Hillary who is not a true Democrat.
Sat Nov 15, 2014, 06:21 AM
Nov 2014

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

(21,115 posts)
223. bullshit...Independents DO NOT get to tell Democrats what to do...
Sat Nov 15, 2014, 09:11 AM
Nov 2014

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

(9,796 posts)
224. Well, no, I'm British
Sat Nov 15, 2014, 10:36 AM
Nov 2014

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

 

VanillaRhapsody

(21,115 posts)
225. but you are not....so your opinions are not so important to us...WE decide.
Sat Nov 15, 2014, 10:37 AM
Nov 2014

you are an outsider no matter how you slice it.

Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Chemisse

(30,802 posts)
218. Why are there so many 'no' responses?
Sat Nov 15, 2014, 07:07 AM
Nov 2014

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

(54,253 posts)
219. Good question
Sat Nov 15, 2014, 07:26 AM
Nov 2014

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

(54,253 posts)
220. If she's our nominee? Hell, yeah, I will.
Sat Nov 15, 2014, 07:30 AM
Nov 2014

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.

sendero

(28,552 posts)
222. Not a fan.....
Sat Nov 15, 2014, 08:43 AM
Nov 2014

.... 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

(9,796 posts)
226. Please don't sit it out
Sat Nov 15, 2014, 10:41 AM
Nov 2014

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

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Would You Vote For Hillar...