Saying you won't vote for a certain person is showing privilege

[upaloopa]

per Michelangelo Signorile. I heard him say that on his radio show on Sirius this weekend.
A caller said he wasn't going to vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination and Michelangelo said he can do that because he was privileged not being a member of a minority or not being gay when it is very important to those groups that the repubs do not win the White House. I thought it was an interesting comment on his part. I heard a similar idea spoken by Mark Thompson on his show Make It Plain on Sirius. I listen to Progressive talk on Sirius a lot when I am driving and most times the host supports Hillary's campaign.
On edit:
This was not my thinking and I think it concerned the general election not the primary.

[hrmjustin]

1. Very good response.

[Bluenorthwest]

2. Well, yes. It demonstrates that those people are not willing to do what they obviously expected

LGBT people and other minorities to do without fail for every election of the past- vote for the nominee anyway. Obama, let's face it, he ran a campaign that took swipes at LGBT people on many occasions and he himself was 'God tells me straights are superior' and yet we, being nuanced adults, voted for him anyway and it worked out pretty well on that issue.
But I've never voted for a nominee that mentioned LGBT people only in the positive or with unmitigated support and for a few who snarled about their God being against me.

I shudder to think what African Americans have had to overlook to vote for various nominees for various offices, some of which I can identify and recall and some of which I probably would not have noticed but they would, you know? How many Latino voters have had to vote for a candidate that did not come all the way to them? Millions.
It goes on like this.

[Behind the Aegis]

9. Very good points.

It is the same privilege demonstrated in the "aftermath" of elections when a candidate loses, it is the minority groups, often Jews (I have seen it applied to gays and Latinos as well), sliced and diced, and the question asked; "Did the X cost us the election?" If X group is Republican, non-X people love to call them names and say they are "bad X's". When X speaks out against X-ism, the non-Xs talk about "moderation" (at best) and "creating divisions" (at worst). X is always responsible for picking up the slack, and when the election goes south, X is likely behind the loss for a variety of reasons, none based in fact, only speculation and innuendo.

[JDPriestly]

50. Hillary is on video clearly stating that marriage is between a man and a woman and its

traditional purpose was raising children.

Bernie always supported same-sex marriage. Hillary is just catching up with her.

Bernie has always supported equal rights for all races.

Those who think that Hillary is the only champion for gay rights and racial justice are wrong.

Bernie was among if not the very first politician to signal his support to African-Ameircans in Ferguson. He is from a mostly white state, but he outspokenly supports equal rights for all.

Hillary voted for the Patriot Act, for the Iraq War Resolution and generally views violence as the solution to a number of international problems with regard to which we have already tried violence and lost out because of it.

Bernie is the better candidate.

In fact, I think that Hillary is such a poor candidate that I will not under any circumstances vote for her.

"When Secretary Clinton and the most terrifying GOP candidates on the skin of the Earth share the same donor list, the (D) after her name doesn't matter a dime."

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/31397-don-t-believe-the-hype-candidate-clinton-s-sudden-populism

[Bluenorthwest]

71. And why would you say all of that to me? What in my post indicates to you that I support Hillary?

I support Sanders. But your choice to lecture me based on what you assume rather than to respond to what I said highlights the point I was making. I did not talk about Hillary, but that's what you wanted to impose on me.


If Hillary is the nominee, that's not going to be some excessive burden to me, she's far better than some of the others that have been nominated in my lifetime. I don't dislike people on command from anyone.

One of the things I like best about Bernie is that he just does not do the petty personal politics, and when baited to do so he is a world master at turning discussion back to the issues. I doubt he's ever heard someone say that minority people have put up with a lot of bullshit out of politicians over the years and reacted by yelling at them about a politician they did not even mention.

I just don't get why you came at me with Hillary Clinton. What's that about? All that preaching and chest beating rhetoric is so shitty when it comes as a non response to actual points made.

[JDPriestly]

75. Because I will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. For me, it is Sanders or no one.

I'm really sick of these corporate candidates.

[gollygee]

78. The OP specifically says "if she wins the nomination" so this is about the general election. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

83. But this is about the general and you did not even bother to attempt to address what I said which

was not about Hillary it was about nominees in general, and the history of minorities voting for less than savory nominees not only for President but for a variety of elected offices. Did I ask you if you would vote for Hillary in the general? No, I did not. Did I say I'm voting for her in the Primary, I did not because I don't intend to. So you just ignored everything I said and stomped on the ground about Hillary, and that says you see yourself as the center of the whole equation. You offer your characterization of Hillary as if that had merit, while you did not even speak to what I said, which has plenty of merit.

You should try promoting Bernie to people who don't know him instead of hounding people who already support him to hate Hillary more, it's just sound politics. Point of electoral politics is to win voters for your candidate or issue, if you don't do that you are just exploiting the candidate or issue and not supporting them at all.
I want people to vote for Bernie because they think he's even better than the rest, not because they have some Matt Drudge loop playing in their brains.

[JDPriestly]

93. I'm a woman, a mother and a grandmother. I'm not a member of a numberical minority, but

i certainly am a member of a group that is underrepresented and has been historically disadvantaged in politics.

This is a discussion forum.

There is no relevancy test for answers to posts on DU that I am aware of.

I also want people to vote for Bernie because he is the best.

Let's be a little more tolerant of each other, please.

I promise I won't tell you not to say what you say in answers to my posts. Thanks for extending the same courtesy to me.

[Bluenorthwest]

102. You still did not tell me why you chose not to address what I wrote but to heap upon me all

that unrelated material. I will assume that you jumped on me assuming I support Hillary because you have certain biases toward gay people since you refuse to discuss anything I actually say.

[JDPriestly]

105. Biases toward gay people?

Jumping on you?

Sorry. It's just my mood today.

I'm not picking on you.

We all post where and what we want as long as we are not hurting anyone.

It's sort of like love. We all love who we want. And that's great as long as we don't hurt anyone. You could have ignored my post. I would not have been hurt.

Live and let live. It's not such a big deal.

I can post when and where I want. And so can you.

Sometimes I think I am responding to a post and get a response to my responsive post from someone to whom I did not address my post.

It isn't important. Let it go.

By the way, I support gay rights vehemently.

[eggplant]

137. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Tue Jun 16, 2015, 08:39 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

You still did not tell me why you chose not to address what I wrote but to heap upon me all
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6847716

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

'Since you have certain biases against gay people'

This is nasty and ott. Accusing duers of being homophobic because they're trying to have a civil discussion is wrong

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jun 16, 2015, 08:48 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The reply to this post says live and let live. So let's do that.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Seriously? Life can be a little rough sometimes. Wear a helmet.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Iliyah]

3. K & R

My number one preference is HRC. That said, whomever wins the Democratic Primary will get my vote!

The present GOP are insane.

[Nye Bevan]

4. Yep. It's like "Wah! My guy didn't get nominated, so I'm going to help the Republican!"

And of course there are probably groups that will suffer worse than you under a Republican president.

[Cirque du So-What]

7. And make no mistake...

Withholding one's vote for the Democratic candidate helps the Republican. Must be nice to have privilege to squander so ruthlessly.

[frylock]

39. hogwash

[NaturalHigh]

64. Tell you what...

Do whatever you want with your vote. That's your RIGHT, not privilege. I'll do whatever I want with my vote. That's my RIGHT, not privilege.

[Art_from_Ark]

141. Presidential elections are not "one person, one vote", unfortunately.

Otherwise, we would have had President Gore, regardless of the shenanigans in Florida and elsewhere.

Saying that, many of us vote in states where the outcome is almost automatically decided. In my 30+ years as an Arkansas voter, when was the last time I voted for a presidential candidate who didn't win or lose my state by 55% or more? Answer: never. And I have never missed a presidential election. I could have cast 20,000 votes for Al Gore, or Michael Dukakis, or John Kerry, or Walter Mondale, and it wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference.

[AgingAmerican]

142. You are mistaken

nt

[merrily]

153. Only if you live in one of the critical counties.

For most of us, how we vote does not come anywhere near swinging a Presidential election.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12778561

I live in Boston. I can vote so-called Third Party all day long and not affect a Presidential election, even a little.

[Oilwellian]

70. That sounds like something Hillary did in 2008

[MuseRider]

5. Interesting.

I do NOT like Hillary Clinton and I do not support her. I would LOVE to vote for a woman for President but I do not want to vote for her. I am not someone who is likely to cross certain of my boundaries to vote for someone with a preference to write in someone else.

However, as I told a person I have been PMing with, I will march myself in to vote and cast that vote for Hillary Clinton because quite frankly at that point she will be the only one standing between total servitude enforced on women by denying them more and more rights and someone who wants just that forcing of women.

No matter how much I don't like her hawkish stance, her Wall Street support and other things too numerous to list when I would otherwise probably write in a name at this particular moment in time I have to think beyond that and cast that vote. Because of the reason I would be doing it I won't even have to hold my nose. This speeding train is going to run us down if we don't stop it now.

I think he may very well be correct in this statement.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

6. Feeling free to vote for Hillary is showing privilege. nt

[Nye Bevan]

11. 87% of African Americans view Hillary favorably.

But if you look at what the polls are telling us so far, Democrats seem quite happy to have Clinton as their presidential nominee. In the latest Pew poll, 77 percent of Democrats see her favorably, and she has strong approval across ages, incomes, and races. (African-Americans, the most important Democratic sub-group, rate her particularly highly, at 87 percent favorable.)

http://theweek.com/articles/556175/hillary-clinton-fewer-problems-democratic-base-than-might-think

I guess they need to check their privilege.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

16. Privilege has more than one dimension. nt

[JI7]

36. what is the privilege black people have which has supporting hillary

?

[SidDithers]

15. That makes no sense whatsoever...nt

Sid

[MohRokTah]

67. I think they don't like being reminded of privilege.

[snooper2]

157. walking on the left side of an aisle in a store is showing privilege

[DawgHouse]

8. He is correct!

[cali]

10. so what if the person saying that is a member of a minority?

still privilege? What's the cudgel for that?

[m-lekktor]

28. All the well off NYC "A" list gays like Signorile are in the bag for Hillary,

(Unless they are log cabin types holding fundraisers for Ted Cruz) Joe Jervis of Joe My God blog is a huge Hillary supporter as well. They are always invited to the big DC political events and they post selfies while attending these events and brag on their facebook pages. They just assume all gay folk adore Hillary and they are taken aback when we all don't high five their adoring comments.

[Behind the Aegis]

29. Oh really?

Why Michelangelo Signorile Believes LGBT Voters Should Be More Critical Of Hillary Clinton

Author, editor and activist Michelangelo Signorile believes that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) voters should "absolutely" be more critical of Hillary Clinton even if she does not become a candidate in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

"She's a prominent politician, she's a prominent individual," Signorile told HuffPost Live host Alex Berg this week. "She should be out front on [LGBT] issues. We need a full civil rights bill at the federal level...she should be not just on board with that, she should be leading and talking about that and championing that."

Signorile, who is also the editor-at-large of HuffPost Gay Voices, also said he was skeptical of what he described as a "blind following" and "adoration" of Clinton among many LGBT leaders.

"C'mon, she's a politician," he noted. "We need things, let's push her."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/07/michelangelo-signorile-hillary-clinton-_n_7020264.html

Why Hillary Clinton Must Back a LGBT Full Civil Rights Law for Her Own Sake

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), running for the Democratic nomination for the presidency, wants to amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include gay and transgender people, assuring a federal law that would ban discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, education and all spheres of American life, with no broad religious exemption. In 1996, he was one of only 67 House members to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which President Bill Clinton signed into law.

Sanders' fellow Democratic presidential contender and former Maryland governor, Martin O'Malley, was at the vanguard of gubernatorial leadership on marriage equality, one of the few governors to spearhead and sign a marriage equality bill into law in 2012, and then fervently campaign in a statewide referendum to ratify it.

Lincoln Chafee, the former U.S. senator and Rhode Island governor, who has now announced a run for the Democratic nomination for the presidency, supported marriage equality as far back as 2004 -- when he was a Republican! -- and similarly pushed and signed a marriage bill into law in his state in 2013. Chafee also said this week that the Pentagon's ban on open transgender military service should be lifted.

And what are we hearing from Hillary Clinton nowadays? Well, she finally said in her own words that marriage for gays and lesbians is a constitutional right -- just two months back -- having previously left that to a campaign spokesperson, while just last year she was still saying it was a state issue, in line with what many Republican candidates say now. And she issued a vague LGBT Pride Month proclamation that said that the work toward equality "is far from finished" without offering any specifics -- like amending the Civil Rights Act, or fully lifting the ban on trans service or creating a whole new civil rights law for LGBT people that does both and more.

...

Most of all, Clinton has got to get away from empty platitudes. Things have moved at light speed, and we're way beyond the time when having a gay couple or two in your campaign video is enough, or where a vague Pride proclamation with no teeth suffices. We should be hearing concrete details from Hillary Clinton on how she is going to be a forceful champion of LGBT rights, both for the sake of equality and for the sake her own campaign.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/hillary-clinton-must-back-a-lgbt-full-civil-rights-law_b_7518610.html

[NewSystemNeeded]

99. I'm a heterosexual white guy who lives in a county where 1-in-4 people are below the poverty level.

Including me.

They have triple the privilege I do.

[LittleBlue]

12. Seems like a pointless guilt exercise verging on fascism

Vote the correct way or feel shame and be branded.

Not my thing. We still live in a democracy.

I will vote as I please and feel not one ounce of shame, not from this pseudo -intellectual or anyone else

[Puzzledtraveller]

77. You called it as I saw it too.

It troubles me also that so many think he is correct in his assertion. I do not know why so many of, at least for me, my fellow liberal peers embrace so much totalitarianism in their own ideas.

[goldent]

151. Not specific to liberals.

It seems to be human nature to try to make other people do and believe what you do. I guess a lot of politics is based on this.

I think this is why the animosity between democrats at times like this is just as intense as that between democrats and republicans. It is the "if you're not with me you're against me" thinking.

[Puzzledtraveller]

158. You are right.

I was able to think of other issues that illustrate your point. Thank you for you reply.

[jeff47]

13. It's almost like team Clinton thinks screaming "privilege" and "POC" loud enough

will make the end of Clinton's 2008 campaign disappear.

[HassleCat]

14. Single Interest Politics

A remark such as that shows the poverty of single issue, or single interest, political loyalty. When expressed in the "forward" direction, it says, "I'm (insert interest group here) and it's important to us to have a Democrat in the White House, so I will vote for the Democratic nominee, even if I don't like that person very much." In the "reverse" mode, it goes, "I'm not a member of (insert interest group here) so I can afford to vote against somebody based on personal dislike." I guess there is a little more to be said for the forward mode of this philosophy, although it does demonstrate a certain sort of selfishness, a lack of appreciation for other people and their interests. In the reverse mode, it's just ridiculous: "Screw all of you and your interests. I'm voting against Clinton (or another candidate) because I don't like her."

[bettyellen]

24. When the single interest is civil rights - including reproductive rights and safety from our racist

Justice system, it's not "selfish" it's self preservation.

Putting your paycheck first - before civil rights - is arguably a great deal more selfish.

[HassleCat]

27. All others follow from mine

Most people who make political decisions according to a single interest believe in the principle that there is one, identifiable civil right that is most important, and the others will fall into place after that interest is addressed. From you comment, I infer you believe other rights follow along with reproductive rights and racial justice. This puts you at odds with those who believe economic justice comes first, and reproductive rights and racial justice will fall into place once we figure out how to give everybody a decent job at a decent wage. I don't know which is correct, but I think our constitutional rights are all equally important. Yes, that includes the right to keep and bear arms, even though I think we're about the last country that should have such a civil right. It's a package deal. You buy the whole package, or you don't buy any of it. So I would prefer to vote for someone who is strong on all our constitutional rights, across the board. And I hope my fellow citizens have enough respect for the rights and concerns of their fellow citizens to recognize the importance of all our civil rights. I think it's perfectly OK to say, "These are my favorites." But I don't think it's OK to say, "These are the only rights that are important."

[NaturalHigh]

65. So are you endorsing this garble that voting my conscience is "privilege"?

The last time I checked, it's a RIGHT, guaranteed by the U.S, Constitution.

As I have consistently pointed out so that nobody sets their hair on fire, I am voting for Hillary Clinton. if Bernie Sanders wins the primary I'm going to vote for him. That said, my vote is my own, and I will vote for whomever I please without one bit of guilt.

[bettyellen]

119. Who said that? I was replying to a comment characterizing having a "special interest"'as selfish.

But yeah- I do think you have to have been born lucky to not have to worry about such "special interests" . Makes my want to puke to use that phrasing.

[AgingAmerican]

143. Bernie is the civil rights candidate

nt

[bettyellen]

148. He missed a great opportunity to speak to that in Wisconsin.

[AgingAmerican]

155. He has spoken to that for 50 years

...consistently.

[bettyellen]

156. Spoke to our current war on women's reproductive choices? What about Wisconsin flew over your head?

[NightWatcher]

17. Is "Privilege" the new shaming word?

And must we do everything we can to avoid being told that we are acting privileged?

I figured if we said we didn't want to vote for Hillary that we'd be called sexist, even if the reasons we didn't vote for her had nothing to do with her gender.

I guess we are no longer allowed to not like something, or someone, or have preferences (notice, I said preferences and not predjudice).

[Eleanors38]

112. It seems to have come a long way from the first sentence in the 14th Amendment.

[Doctor_J]

18. then the party is showing privilege by nominating a corporatist insider for president

"If you don't vote for Hillary you're a privileged racist" sounds like a losing campaign slogan to me.

[randome]

21. Do minorities see a 'corporate insider' so easily, though?

Or do they see someone who will serve as a bulwark against discrimination?

It's at least a point to be discussed that disdaining someone who doesn't measure up to economic standards comes from a privileged point of view when others think there are much more important issues at play.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[AgingAmerican]

144. Bernie will be the bulwark against discrimination

He is the stronger civil rights candidate

[Ed Suspicious]

152. He wants all of his constituents to have opportunity to good paying jobs. He wants all of

his constituents to have a say in our government. He is the candidate of the 99% He is not ALL about economics, he's also about election reform. He's about fairness. Fairness for all, regardless of color or creed. Anti-Sanders people are flailing about frightened at his early success. They're just hoping something sticks to stem the tide.

[uppityperson]

19. I disagree with name calling rather than pointing out their decision is to support Repubs

People are complicated begins and it takes longer to hold a discussion to get to all the different reasons than to simply call them a name, try to put them in a group.

Using this as part of a discussion, however, is OK. "You are privileged to not be in a group that will get badly harmed" is different from "you are showing privilege", IMO.

[hfojvt]

20. well I have the privilege of

living in Kansas.

Well, people in Louisiana or Utah might consider that a privilege.

That means I could vote, not vote, or even, in theory, I could use my superlative persuasive eloquence to convince everybody in this county, the 6th largest county in Kansas, to a) goto the polls and b) vote for the dauphine.

And then instead of losing Kansas by 699,655 to 514,765 like Obama did in 2008 - (a year that he had so much extra money that he hired a field organizer to work in this county, who then hired a "rat pack" of kids to go door to door.) then Hillary might lose it by 680,000 to 555,000.

Yes, it is quite a privilege.

But then again, what isn't?

Doubtless everybody reading this has "not being in a coma privilege" (at least not YET, several readers may slip into one before I get done) and "having internet access privilege" and "not dying in an earthquake privilege" among many, many others.

[Eleanors38]

113. In Texas, I have the "privilege" of voting for my neighbor's cat.

[barbtries]

22. i'm pulling for Bernie

but i will vote for the democrat.

[99Forever]

23. Unmitigated hogwash.

Earn my vote or do without it. Period

[MissDeeds]

49. +1000

I will not be brow beaten into voting for a candidate I do not believe in and do not support.

[deutsey]

149. +1

[MineralMan]

25. We will all suffer if a Republican President is elected.

Some will suffer more, obviously, but all will suffer. Primaries are where to vote for the person you would most like to be the Democratic nominee. In the general election, Democrats vote for the Democrat. It's very simple. Doing anything else is the same as voting for the Republican. What person in their right mind would do that?

[stage left]

26. anyone running as a Democratic candidate for President

would be better as President than any Republican in my opinion. That's why I will vote for the Democratic nominee, as I have since I've been voting.

[Behind the Aegis]

32. Agreed.

It is that which Signorile was addressing; not so much the Democratic primaries, but the actual elections. During the democratic primaries, we have a choice to pick the candidate which most represents our views, however, should that candidate not "progress" to the next stage, then the choice becomes Democrat or Republican (in the major elections, smaller elections can be very different), and I have, as of yet, to find a democrat who is worse than a republican. It may not be the best system, but it is the only system for now.

[2banon]

30. oh. okay. that's the new bullying meme.Invoke Privilege on the poor and working class! Wow!

talk about flipping the propaganda on it's head.!

The way I see it, only the PRIVILEGED CLASS would actually make this up/buy into it.

When the privileged class really show how sleazy and out of touch they are is when it matters most to the poor and working class.

After they've "won" the elections, well we can then all piss off.

[Maedhros]

31. I refused to be coerced into voting for a candidate that I don't want in the White House. [n/t]

[GoneFishin]

33. I have the privilege of voting for whoever earns my vote, and not voting for those who do not.

Everybody else should do the same.

Any group that takes my vote for granted is in error.

Otherwise you are predictable and easily manipulated by the two party "lesser of two evils scam", which is why the country keeps sliding to the right.

[passiveporcupine]

62. I agree that you have that priviledge

However, I believe voting is more of a responsibility than a privilege. I think voting should be required. I wish everyone had to vote so that the final vote between dem or republican can't just be avoided because you aren't happy with the dem choice. Are you happy with the republican choice? Because if you don't vote for the dem in the general, you are helping the republican win. Is that really what you want? If you don't vote dem, you are abdicating your responsibility to move this country forward. Voting green is not going to help the dems win, it will help the republicans. Not voting is simply behaving like a pouty child...well if I don't get to have my way, I won't play at all. Only, this is no damned game.

And I'm not aiming this at you in particular GoneFishin. I'm aiming this at everyone who says they will not vote for Clinton if she wins the primary.

I don't like Clinton at all, but if she wins the primary you can damn well bet I'm voting for her in the general, because I don't want a Ted Cruz, or a Jeb Bush, or a Paul Rand sitting in that white house.

Think about it folks. One of those in that clown car could really end up as President of this country. I'd give anything to see Bernie there, but if he loses the primary, I'm going for the dem who does win...even if it means holding my nose to do so. We cannot afford to lose this time. The supreme court issue is too damned important. There are too many issues that are too damned important.

And for dog's sake, why do you think Bernie ran as a dem rather than an independent? He knew it was important not to divide or weaken the party.

[LittleBlue]

88. Compulsory voting is unconstitutional

Thankfully we live in a country where we are all guaranteed the right to not vote

Would you put Native Americans and blacks in prison for not participating in a political system that has historically oppressed, murdered and enslaved them? Would you fine them? How would you punish minorities for protesting the system?

[passiveporcupine]

97. there is only one way to change the system

and that is to vote. Protesting the system by not voting does nobody any good. Especially the protesters.

It should be our constitutional responsibility to participate in the system, when our democratic system is set up to be "the people's voice". Being shut out of voting is unconstitutional.

Right now it's the "monied people's voice". The only way to change that is to vote to get money out of politics. If everyone voted, we "could" do that.

[GoneFishin]

139. I respect your right to use whatever method seems logical to you, however it is my belief that

by promising publicly to hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils that you are assuring that your vote will be taken for granted. You are demanding nothing in return for your vote, therefore you will likely get nothing in return for your vote.

A line drawn in the sand which is then erased, moved, and redrawn over, and over, and over quickly becomes meaningless. I've drawn the line, and it stays where it is.

Yes. It will suck if the clown car gets parking space #1 in front of the White House. So rather than telling me that I should suck it up and get behind a corporatist in the general election, how about the rest of you sucking it up and supporting a true progressive in the primary?

[passiveporcupine]

140. I'm 100% with you in the primary

I'm already voting for Bernie in the primary...so your point is not really valid. I will vote for Bernie, and will try to encourage everyone else to vote for Bernie, but if he does not make it to the general election, I will not let my vote or lack of, allow the clown car access to the white house. I will do what I have to do. But for now, every bit of energy and as much money as I can afford, is going to Bernie.

[William769]

34. Kick & recommended.

[Prism]

35. That word is getting abused

People are starting to think they can use the word privilege in order to get their way in an argument.

My vote is my own, and I will vote for precisely who I feel deserves my vote. I will not be shamed by anyone.

Signed,

A gay guy

[Behind the Aegis]

37. The word has been abused.

Mainly by those who refuse to acknowledge it, especially in regards to areas other than race and sex.

Also signed,

A gay guy

[Prism]

68. This is kind of a nonsensical reply

In that it doesn't really mean anything. People who don't acknowledge privilege aren't throwing that word around willy nilly.

Women, ethnic minorities, LGBTers, the poor, etc. are the Democratic party's natural constituents. Right here in this thread, you have people from just about every group there telling Signorile to stuff it.

Are all of them massively privileged? Who gets to decide? Michaelangelo? You? Me? What kind of measuring stick are we going to use? Is everyone who doesn't vote for the nominee privileged? Just some?

Who?

And that's what I mean. Signorile's comment is pretty much meaningless. He's just tossing the word out there, because people got a little too comfortable with the idea that the word immediately places shame upon the receiver. It cheapens the concept of privilege and makes people less likely to bother about it.

It's idiotic silliness from a lazy thinker who wants to shill and thinks invoking the magical "sacred words" of his ideology will have some effect.

No thanks. Didn't like it in Catholicism, don't care for it in my social justice.

[Behind the Aegis]

82. It makes perfect sense.

They do, in fact, throw it around "willy nilly" in their claims they "don't have it" or "it isn't real."

Women, ethnic minorities, LGBTers, the poor, etc. are the Democratic party's natural constituents. Right here in this thread, you have people from just about every group there telling Signorile to stuff it.

Wrong. He said presidential nominee, not perspective nominee. He is absoulutely correct. If a person doesn't vote for the democratic presidential candidate, they are in fact usually doing it because of a form of privilege or a whiny they didn't get their way.

It isn't about "sacred" words, and your flip remarks show just how important those words really are.

[LittleBlue]

91. And Native Americans who refuse to participate in a governmental system

that ethnically cleansed them, murdered them and took their land? Are they privileged? Politics isn't all about the issues you and your friends care about. A Native American might consider the fact that their nations were destroyed and 95% of their people died just as important as you consider abortion and gay rights

[Prism]

103. Yup

There's definitely privilege and entitlement at work here, but I don't think it's where Signorile and others claim it is.

[Behind the Aegis]

130. Depends.

Privilege isn't the property of just one group. Not participating, wasn't the premise; it was for those who DO participate, not those who do not. But, you make a good point, that some would be willing to sacrifice GLBT rights, reproductive rights, and civil rights, because they didn't get their way (candidate).

[Prism]

104. Identify the privilege

The exact privilege. If someone who is oppressed in some way does not vote for the Democratic nominee, identify what in your mind constitutes their privilege. You're making the accusation. Substantiate it.

I don't throw the word privilege around to get my way in arguments with people. I'm not being the flip one here.

[Behind the Aegis]

131. It depends.

If someone doesn't vote for the democratic nominee vs the republican one, or at least against the republican one, then there it is. The privilege can be one of many identities, or it can be one of money, but to claim there is no difference; to claim it would be better to not vote for the democratic candidate vs. the republican one, furthers the argument and only amplifies the problems with our electoral system.

[NewSystemNeeded]

51. It's increasingly being used to shout down impoverished white people.

Who are told they should stop complaining because someone else might have it worse.

When did struggles and hardships become a fucking competition?

[romanic]

96. Yes indeed.

I've leaned towards Bernie more than Hillary but I would definitely vote for her if she gets the Dem nom; but I'm not going to shame someone else if they dont vote for her and say their privilege. Hell, aren't we all when it comes to being able to vote?

[frylock]

38. I'm privileged to live in a solid blue state and vote my conscience..

it's going to be fun watching what other shaming techniques Team Clinton can come up with in order to coerce people to vote for her.

[Lizzie Poppet]

42. Beat me to it! (see below)

[Lizzie Poppet]

40. You can also argue that it's a "privilege" accorded by the anachronistic Electoral College.

If your state is clearly going to go to one candidate (and is a "winner take all" state in terms of EC votes), you have a certain freedom to vote your conscience. That's the case here in Oregon, where recent presidential elections (and in all probability the next pone...I'll know for sure next spring or early summer) were never going to go any direction but "blue."

[alc]

41. that'll work with people on DU

But the relatively small percentage of the population on DU that might not vote isn't who matters.

There are a lot of potential voters out there who need to be convinced to vote for a candidate because it helps them not because it helps someone else. It would be much better to use positive messages for how the candidate will help everyone rather than trying to shame people into voting because of privilege. If you feel the need to go the shame route with someone you know, make sure you know them well enough to expect it will work. You could end up with the opposite result.

[seveneyes]

43. Michelangelo Signorile has the privilege of being wrong sometimes

How he handles it internally is his privilege.

[daredtowork]

44. But voting for a person who will implement policy that will hurt destitute people

to the point of subjecting them to torture. And who has yet to acknowledge that fact. Voting for that person will be performing an act of justice (economic, racial, or otherwise)?

What a load of absolute hooey.

[JDPriestly]

45. I won't vote for Hillary. I do not trust her.

She voted for the Patriot Act. She voted for the Iraq War Resolution. She has shown bad judgment.

We have a candidate, Bernie Sanders, who has voted, often against the herd in Congress, for what is right and just.

He will make a good president.

I don't think Hillary will. Hillary supported the Defense of Marriage Act. Bill Clinton signed welfare "reform" which has hurt many low-income people who live on the edge and who, thanks to that "reform" in a time of low employment suffer a lot.

A lot of people have illusions about the Clintons. I don't.

I agree with this:

"When Secretary Clinton and the most terrifying GOP candidates on the skin of the Earth share the same donor list, the (D) after her name doesn't matter a dime."

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/31397-don-t-believe-the-hype-candidate-clinton-s-sudden-populism

I will not vote for Hillary.

People can write all the nasty posts they want with all the foolish propaganda and threats they want, but I will vote my conscience. I hope others will do the same.

[snagglepuss]

135. So well said it ought to be its own OP.

[NewSystemNeeded]

46. There are many areas in this country that have unconscionable levels of poverty,

And they've been continuously ignored by Democratic presidents and Republican presidents.

Privilege is Culture War voters who are perfectly fine with perpetual poverty as long as their pet issues are addressed.

Frankly, I'm sick of struggling and I'm sick of pretending my problems don't matter just as much.

[bettyellen]

154. Civil rights = pet issues. Wow.

[99Forever]

47. I'm privileged to know a cheap attempt at intimidating thru false shaming....

....when I see it.

Furthermore, voting for who I choose is my RIGHT, not a "privilege."

[NaturalHigh]

48. *cough* BULLSHIT *cough*

Nobody owns my vote, and nobody gets to tell me how to vote. That's not a privilege, it's a RIGHT. Check out the Constitution.

[AtomicKitten]

61. +1. It is my privilege to vote my conscience.

[randys1]

52. It is of course one hundred percent accurate and a point I have made here several times.

[Behind the Aegis]

54. I don't think people are reading the actual OP.

It says IF she is the PRESIDENTIAL nominee, not she SHOULD BE the presidential nominee.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. Yeah, the privilege of deciding for myself what to do with my vote.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

[randys1]

87. Seems like a clever response, but it isnt. You are showing privilege by ignoring reality.

Because reality has different meanings to different people.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

114. Really? Do tell.

The "reality" is that I live in Washington State. However I choose to vote (or, not vote) will have absolutely no impact on the outcome of the election.

What's the "reality" about your single vote? Will it decide the outcome of the election? If your vote has ever decided the outcome of a federal election, which one?

That is the "reality".

[randys1]

117. Then it is not about your individual vote but the attitude that can rub off on others.

If someone actually claims there is no compelling reason to vote for Women's choice, voting rights, food and medicine for the poor, all things Hillary is for and all cons are against, then that person is either very selfish or has a different agenda.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

120. Is it working on you?

How am I being "selfish" by using my vote the way I choose? Aren't you doing the same?

"An attitude that can rub off on others". Is an attitude of facing reality dangerous? How does it "rub off on others"? Is it "rubbing off" on you?

Again, the question: How has my vote, or yours, decided any federal election? I assume you vote, as I do. In my experience of voting in any election, in 49 years of voting my vote hasn't changed the outcome, no matter how I voted.

My "agenda" is to vote for what I believe in rather than a label or settle for "not as bad".

What's your agenda?

[randys1]

121. My agenda is to do everything in my power to make sure the person with n R after their

name wins NO elections.

I wont be successful all the time, but that is my agenda.

I believe they are killing people with their policies and intend on killing many more.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

123. I agree. I've never voted for a Republican and can't imagine ever doing so.

I have, however, voted for third party candidates (Peace & Freedom and Green) when the Democratic strays to close to, or embraces, Republican policies.

[randys1]

124. Yeah, so you are the one I will ask...It is down to you, your vote for a 3rd party candidate

gives it to the con, your vote for the Dem, gives it to the Dem, what do you do?

If it is Hillary vs ANY con and it really is down to you?

i know it cant happen in real life, but i am asking anyway

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

127. I'd sit it out and read a good book.

And let them start over.

But, if that hypothetical situation ever happens and I am the chosen one to decide the election, and know it, I'll do like Hillary, postpone the decision, and promise to carefully think about the pros and cons.

[B2G]

55. That word is starting to set my teeth on edge. nt

[magical thyme]

56. if by "privileged" you mean "privileged to not live in a country where voting is compulsory"

then you're right. We are privileged to not be forced to vote for pre-selected political dynasties if we so choose .

[randys1]

89. NO, that is not what is meant. What is meant is it is easy for someone who is non affected by

the radical and hateful agenda of the right to pretend that the right and left are the same or that dems and repubs are the same.

[Iggo]

57. Yeah.

Except no.

[lunamagica]

58. That is so true. Those who will not vote if she's the nominee are those who will not be personally

affected if a Republican wins.

But many of us can't afford that risk.

[zeemike]

59. I clicked on this thinking it was going to be the Onion.

Surprise surprise it was serious.

Yes indeed we have gone that far over the top.

[Romeo.lima333]

60. privilege. so many tossing this word around and applying to anthing they can that

soon it will be meaningless

[pansypoo53219]

63. HOW is voting for hillary WORSE than my having to vote for Dukakis, kerry + lieberfuckenputz as VP?

suck it up. DUKAKIS! mr i have a plan kerry. WHY is hillary WORSE?

[gollygee]

66. I don't think people are really reading your post

You aren't saying that it shows privilege to vote for Clinton over Sanders in the primary. Only that it shows privilege to say that you wouldn't vote for Clinton in the national election should she win the primary. And I agree with that. As a woman with daughters, I can't afford to have a Republican choosing Supreme Court justices. I will vote for Sanders in the primary, but I will absolutely vote for whoever has a D behind their name in the national election.

[gaspee]

69. My position exactly

Even though I live in a state that will probably go for the dem by 30 points, I will vote for the Democratic nominee. Any one of the 4 of them will be a better president than any 1 of the 20 Republicans in the clown car.

[Bluenorthwest]

79. Not only are people not reading the post, they are not reading posts within the thread and just

responding out of assumption and what would have to be called privilege to be nice because what it really is is prejudice.

[Behind the Aegis]

85. Exactly, and what is REALLY funny?

Signorile has PUSHED Clinton supporters to get their candidate to be more upfront and on target, especially in regards to LGBT issues, and stop hem-hawing around; so much, that he had to clarify he wasn't telling people not to vote for her, but to be aware of what her positions are. Now, he is being accused of implying not voting for Clinton is an abuse of privilege, which isn't the truth. I suspect this is misdirection.

[Bluenorthwest]

94. People who have said they will vote for any nominee are saying 'Nope' because it's a gay person

saying this. Or perhaps they can't read.

[Behind the Aegis]

84. Yup!

Makes one wonder if it is in on purpose, or if that was the reason it was posted. Many questions abound. The OP was about the nomination WINNER, not WHO to nominate. Though, it is clear, for some, if it is Clinton, then they won't vote for her in the general election either. I would gladly take Clinton over anyone in the current clown bus candidates of the Republican Party.

[upaloopa]

86. I am repeating what I heard on the radio this weekend

It isn't my idea it is Michelangelo Signorile's idea.
I found it interesting because privilege is discussed so much here that the DU popular view is taken as a given.
My guess is that some folks who point out privilege in others would find it hard to see it in themselves.

[WilliamPitt]

72. I assume this means in the General Election

In the primary, I'm going to vote for whoever I damn well please.

[H2O Man]

73. not

[Bluenorthwest]

92. If you won't vote for the nominee because they are not to your liking, it might not be privilege

but it's stupid. And I do think that minority experience tends to teach the wisdom of supporting Democrats in the WH even if they are not our Democrat of first choice.

So I, like the OP is suggesting, will as I always do vote for the Democratic nominee. Sanders/O'Malley ticket sounds sporty to me, but whatever comes out the spout will be better than the alternative in my book.

[Autumn]

74. I am privileged to cast my vote for whom I chose or

Last edited Tue Jun 16, 2015, 06:59 PM - Edit history (1)

not to vote if I chose that option, I am privileged that I will choose to vote my conscience as is every Americans privilege to vote as they wish. I will not be coerced into voting for a candidate, I will not be shamed into voting for a candidate. I will make my choice and vote accordingly.

Actually here we caucus but the one vote fits my response.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

76. In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place. Gandhi

[Autumn]

80. Exactly. One person, one vote. And that one vote is yours to do with

as you wish.

[randome]

109. Is that the same as saying only your concerns weigh into your decision?

Because I think the crux of the OP is simply to be aware of the importance of this election to others who may not share your viewpoint.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[Autumn]

111. If an election is important to others then they should cast their one vote as they wish.

I can't and I won't cast my vote based on someones else's viewpoint. Each American citizen is given one vote, what they do with that vote is up to each individual. I will now vote my concerns.

[TransitJohn]

81. Good fucking Christ.

Shit's getting weird.

[randys1]

90. And yet to the vast majority of non whites, Gays, etc., the idea makes perfect sense.

Maybe some folks should think about that, but you dont have to, that is right.

[LittleBlue]

95. I would like you to respond to this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026845706#post91

Are Native Americans who choose to not vote privileged?

[randys1]

98. I make no judgment calls on ANYONE who isnt in the privileged class, which they are not.

Whatever they do they do for reasons I cant even begin to appreciate, given the holy hell we have visited upon them and still do.

I would not criticize a minority or a Gay person, openly, for the same reason.

I have criticized Jenner for being a con, so I guess I am not perfect.

But anyone who is not in the privileged class can do damn near anything they want and I will respect it even if it puzzles me or sometimes bothers me.

But when you are in the privileged class and you show such privilege as in not voting for the Dem, it infuriates me.

Unless you arent a dem or liberal in the first place, then it is expected.


FOR INSTANCE if the African American community along with the only real natives of this country decided to burn it down, it would be understandable.

[beam me up scottie]

100. Are you talking about the general election or accusing non-Hillary supporters of privilege?

Because I'm sick of DUers telling Sanders supporters that we are voting for "white male rule".

[Bluenorthwest]

101. In the text of the OP it says 'if she wins the nomination'

I can't believe how many people here can't see what is written. It's right there.

[beam me up scottie]

106. Well after reading all of the other posts accusing us of not caring about minority issues

I tend to be a little suspicious.

[Behind the Aegis]

132. I can understand your suspicion.

The funny thing is Signorlie, had to clarify he wasn't encouraging people to NOT vote for Clinton in response to many of his articles about her needing to speak more clearly about GLBT issues (I posted two articles way above). But, I, like you have my suspicions about how this might have been used and why.

[beam me up scottie]

133. Oh not only do I understand, BtA I agree with you.

The title of the op set me off, as for the others you're referring to, well... you and I both know what brings them out.

It's like ringing a dinner bell.

[upaloopa]

107. I just edited my OP to say I think it was

the general election that was being talked about. I posted what I heard the idea was not mine. I posted it because I thought it was an interesting take on Signorile's part.
The caller like some on DU said there was no way they could ever vote for Hillary and Signorile gave that response.

[beam me up scottie]

108. Thanks, upaloopa.

I read the op but was wondering how you felt.

This place is making me a little punchy.

I will vote for the Dem nominee in the general, the alternative is unthinkable.

[MellowDem]

110. A vote for Hillary in the primary is a vote for privilege....

A vote for Hillary in the general election is a vote for privilege, just less so than a Republican.

I just think it's pretty fucked system overall, and people saying those who don't want to support Hillary are therefore supporting privilege as a sort of weird Bizarro logic that only makes sense because we have a fucked system.

And it illustrates just how terrible a candidate Hillary is, the ultimate privileged person who used her power to attack blacks in the 08 campaign when she was losing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

115. They seemed to have forgiven her for any real or perceived transgressions.

They seemed to have forgiven her for any real or perceived transgressions.



Hillary Clinton enjoys 90% favorability among African American Democrats

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_61615.pdf


PG 37

[MellowDem]

136. Or they don't even know about it...

You'd have to pay lots of attention to the details of the entire primary campaign, and the vast majority of voters don't.

I'm just sad this is our front runner, someone with a track record of using dog whistles when she was losing. I can't respect someone like that.

[JEB]

116. I support Bernie and if he fails to win the nomination then

I'll have to decide if there is a candidate I can support. I ain't givin' it away.

[PowerToThePeople]

118. What type of beatings would you choose today?

I choose none of the above.

[bettyellen]

125. Lol. Way to win friends and influence people, lol.

[davidn3600]

122. So instead of convincing someone why they should vote for Hillary...

...we are going to shame the voters by claiming they have "privilege" unless they vote for her.

This election is starting to get weird.

[Depaysement]

126. The general election is too far away for this

We are seven months plus from Iowa.

[bluestateguy]

128. The Nader voters in 2000 very much had that privilege mentality

Mostly snotty, white, upper-middle class or affluent college kids who thought they were so brilliant and bucking the system by voting for Nader. And well-to-do ex-hippies with million dollar houses and fat 401k plans (thanks largely to Bill Clinton's roaring economy, btw) also were common Nader voters.

These people had the luxury to indulge in their little Green Party fantasy because they knew they would not have to suffer from the consequences of a Bush presidency.

[NaturalHigh]

146. You mean they exercised their RIGHTS to vote their conscience?

Everybody owns his or her own vote. I've always pretty much thought that Nader was a dipshit; but he had every right to run, and people had every right to vote for him. My wife (then girlfriend) voted for him, and she was hardly upper middle class or an ex-hippie with a million dollar home.

[MFrohike]

134. Cool

I'm sure accusing potential supporters of bigotry will win his chosen candidate lots of votes. I can't see how such a well-planned strategy could ever fail.

[Kurska]

138. "he can do that because he was privileged not being a member of a minority or not being gay" wow

I am a gay man and no politician automatically earns my vote.

[JonLP24]

145. There is probably a minority that doesn't vote

or may not vote for her or anyone else or if that anyone else is the nominee or vote for the Republican. There are roughly 10% that do. It all varies.

[Jester Messiah]

147. Everything is "privilege" anymore.

The word is so overused as to have lost all meaning.

[goldent]

150. Yep, it is name calling plain and simple

It is shorthand for "I don't like you or your opinions"

[Oilwellian]

159. How dare those uppity privileged folks...

refuse to vote for a privileged candidate. I mean, really! The nerve!

[Jamaal510]

160. At first I thought

this idea sounded a little bit of a reach, but it made sense as I thought about it more and more. If a person is poor and/or from any historically-disadvantaged group, our options are going to be more limited regarding which party and candidates represent and fight for what is important to us. The GOP has virtually no sort of agenda anymore that benefits anyone outside of rich straight Christian White men, so there's only 1 viable political party that actually tries to have beneficial policies for everyone. Every election is always a make-or-break. It's too bad we can't have both parties working on behalf of all Americans. As much as I laugh at the GOP clown car and its extremeness, I also can't help but think that this isn't healthy for the political process.