Why many Sanders supporters claim they won't vote for Hillary:

[Flying Squirrel]

Buried deep in this article:

http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/02/the-jonathan-capehart-saga-or-why-progressives-hav.html

(A wonderful article by the way, worthy of a full read)

I found this nugget of gold:

Sanders has an iron grip on the hearts and minds country’s youth, and without those voters, Clinton will have a difficult time in a general election. An increasing number have publicly avowed to abstain on principle if Sanders doesn’t win the nomination, and many more will do so out of apathy toward Clinton—turns out, fatalism and premature capitulation aren’t very attractive. As the center-lefties begin to see this play out, they react with dismay and anger. Why would anyone do anything that might help put a Republican in office?

They’re all missing the point. When you hear Sanders supporters insist that they won’t vote for her when the time comes, don’t make the mistake of thinking these people are naive, or spiteful, or ignorant of the consequences. It’s a simple case of feeling disenfranchised, and refusing to participate in a corrupt system that screws you with one hand and expects your support with the other. It’s too insulting—too utterly demeaning—to play along.

Note to jury: I am not advocating this position in this post. I am posting someone's opinion regarding the reason many people hold this position. Human nature is often irrational. The fact that this reason is irrational does not change the fact that it will drive behavior.

[randys1]

1. Such an immature way to look at our system. Play my way or I take the ball and go home.

Potentially will cause so much harm that I cant begin to say.

The SC alone...

jesus fucking christ

[TTUBatfan2008]

5. Thing is...

...She is likely the nominee without all of the character attacks on Sanders supporters. It was unnecessary for her campaign to take the low road and they did it anyway.

[randys1]

9. Who attacked Sanders supporters? The attacks here were against HIllary 100-1

for the first few weeks, then slowly the Hillary people started to return in kind, but I am unaware of the Hillary campaign attacking Bernie supporters

[TTUBatfan2008]

11. Let me see here...

Gloria Steinem said females who support Sanders are a bunch of sluts that are chasing boys.
Secretary of State Albright (with Hillary 2 feet behind her) said there is a special place in hell for women who don't vote for Hillary.
The CBC PAC released a statement talking down to younger voters who might be considering Sanders.
And now you have Bill Clinton himself saying that the liberals who have repeatedly defended him from right wing attacks are a bunch of Tea Partiers.

[Nonhlanhla]

15. Don't Bernie supporters get tired of lying?

The way you "report" on those quotes amounts to lying. For example, NOWHERE did Gloria Steinem say young women are "a bunch of sluts that are chasing boys."

I did not like what Steinem said, and most of the Hillary supporters did not either. But that is no reason to put words in her mouth.

[TTUBatfan2008]

18. Strongly implied...

As Maher said, if he made the same statement Gloria would have rightfully slapped the heck out him.

As far as lying, is Hillary still running around calling Sanders a single issue candidate?

[Nonhlanhla]

29. No, it was NOT strongly implied

I did not find Steinem's comments to be particularly helpful, but I know her work, so I'm aware of where she is coming from. She is definitely not coming from a place of calling women "sluts." Anyone who would even think that, is either an idiot or lying.

Your other quotes are also largely distortions. I'm just too tired to go into them all.

Hillary's depiction of Bernie as a one-issue candidate is NOTHING compared to his smear campaign against her as someone who has sold her soul. And yes, he cares about multiple issues, but he DOES in fact filter other issues through a class analysis perspective, and in that sense, she has a point.

[earthshine]

39. Sold her soul? When did he say this?

It happens to be my opinion, but Bernie didn't say this.

Bernie's perspective, in a nutshell, is that Hillary is a third-way corporatist, and that's where her primary loyalties will be.

Steinem didn't imply "sluts." She implied they have "boys on their mind," which is a normal-enough thing for young women. But, in total, Steinem's comments are absolutely ridiculous and further hurt Hillary's campaign.

The "class analysis perspective" is the meta-issue -- the big umbrella -- that hangs over all.

Hillary would rather deal with the little things. Bernie's going for big. I'm with him for as long as I can be.

[Nonhlanhla]

66. Your fellow Bernie supporter,

the one that I was responding to, is the one who said that Steinem had suggested that young women are sluts. Take that issue up with him or her.

I also don't think Steinem's words helped. She should have known that they would be taken out of context.

The "sold her soul" phrase refers to exactly what you were talking about: the idea that Hillary's primary loyalties will be with corporations. I simply do not buy into that narrative. I know she is more conservative than Bernie. But I also know that she has a strong progressive record, and I see no reason to sketch her as a corporate sell-out.

Whether class analysis is the meta-issue through which all other issues must be filtered is a very debatable point. And part of my problem with Bernie. And that is what Hillary is talking about when she calls him a single issue candidate.

[earthshine]

201. It would seem we "respectfully" disagree.

And that's okay.

As a matter of word play, Hillary's primary loyalties will be populist.

Her post-election loyalties will be different. That's the "third-way" - socially liberal policies and corporate-oriented economic policies.

Seen it before with both Bill and Barack. Won't get fooled again.

Cheers to you.

[Beacool]

90. And Sanders is not a Democrat, he's a "democratic" Socialist.

[navarth]

109. whatever he is, it's an improvement

and he has my vote.

[INdemo]

163. And Hillary is not a Democrat...She is a Corporatist

[pinebox]

192. And this is exactly WHY so many Bernie supporters will never support Hillary, rhetoric like yours

[Beacool]

196. What rhetoric?

Sanders described himself as a "democratic Socialist". He ran against Democrats, criticized the party for years and just joined them when he decided to run for president. Therefore, no, he's not really a Democrat.

[pinebox]

199. Oh please you know EXACTLY what you're doing

He is a Democrat. he is running for the DEMOCRATIC nomination. Period. Put your purity crap away. His policies are MORE in line with Democrats than Hillary and it isn't even close.

FDR is rolling over in his grave and Reagan is cheering her on.

Who cares if Bernie criticized "the party". Nobody, especially politicians are above criticism. THEY SERVE US! Bernie shoots straight. You don't like it? Guess what? I do too. I'll criticize each of the dingus 89 Dems who voted to gut SNAP and I'll criticize Obama for wanting TPP. I'll criticize DWS for helping elect her Republican buddies and I'll criticize for voting for a border fence or one of her other million hypocrisies.

Sorry but Hillary is no more "entitled" to the Presidency than Bernie or you or I.

[Beacool]

218. There's also this.

One promises changes that he will never be able to deliver, since his agenda seems to depend on a revolution. The other one is a pragmatist who doesn't over promise. She knows the reality on the ground that the next president will encounter.

[pinebox]

219. What change won't he be able to deliver

We'll wait.
Tell us what change Hillary can deliver in a Republican congress who wants to impeach her.
We'll wait.

[cui bono]

205. By your logic Hillary is definitely a Republican.

Because Obama is more 'liberal' than her, he's described himself as a "moderate Republican", therefore Hillary is a Republican.

Glad we cleared that up. So we have your go ahead to call her a Republican then?

.

[earthshine]

203. Hillary, Bill, Barack - third-way democrats - not "real" democrats

They might as well be republicans for the way they feed at the corporate trough.

Obama openly admits to having policies like a mid 80s republican. Hillary wants to continue his legacy.

Hillary was for TPP, until she was against it. Hilarious ... not.

[1StrongBlackMan]

153. That "It was 'implied'" stuff is what they say ...

whenever they get called on saying stuff that they know no one said.

[TTUBatfan2008]

42. That's nothing...

Compared to the Swift Boat attempts on Sanders' activism against segregation.

Sanders is right that the system is corrupt. He is right that we can't fix the country until we fix campaign finance. No one forced the Clintons to take hundreds of millions of dollars from big corporations and then take advice from Robert Rubin or Larry Summers.

[wendylaroux]

40. both sides do it. nt

[Beacool]

88. Hear, hear!!!

Do these people even read DU??? it's 24/7 attacks on Hillary, Bill and even Chelsea.

They are so disingenuous that it's actually funny.

[Art_from_Ark]

211. Oh, really?

"According to Hillary supporters on DU Bernie is Israel's #1 shill, a pro gunner that thinks women enjoy being raped, racist, gun nut, scheming little sneak, drooling, sweating old fool, scumbag, pandering phony braggart with some kind of emotional instability, tool for the NRA, Republican man with his head between women's legs, who protects the minutemen militia, pedophiles, racist cops, has rape fantasies, thinks that orgasms prevent cancer and is supported by Stormfront. "

Blue links available here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251780149#post6

[krawhitham]

53. When taking the ball and going home is your only power, sometimes you have to use it

Or nothing changes and you get what we have here today

[Thor_MN]

59. So TeaParty tactics are OK? nt.

[Beacool]

102. And yet, they get offended when someone called them the Tea Party of the Left.

[Thor_MN]

108. To be fair, most are vastly more intelligent than your average Tea Bagger...

And some percentage of them are really Right Wing Trolls. But in function...

[pinebox]

193. And yet that Tea Party movement got people elected.

[Ed Suspicious]

119. You know you will not be successful shaming people into voting. That you can be sure of. In fact

you may shame some of them into voting trump.

[Thor_MN]

126. Taking the ball and going home is childish and will elect Trump.

If it comes down to a Clinton nomination and the GOP wins because of childish tantrums, we all lose.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

195. Both sides are trying to shame the other into voting for their candidate. Also threatening that.....

......they won't vote for the other candidate. Insulting the other candidate and their supporters. Those tactics do not work in changing a persons mind.

[ccinamon]

97. yep!

Sometimes you have to let the forest burn to make room for new growth.

[mythology]

181. No that isn't the only power

If you don't like the candidates you have to vote for, find one at the local level, or become one yourself. The reason that the far right is so powerful is that they worked hard at the city and state level to get their preferred candidates elected in those positions which then filters up. Somebody like Ted Cruz doesn't get put in a position where he thinks he's actually viable for President without the far right electorate having gotten excited for him as a Senator. And they got excited for Marco Rubio, for Rick Perry (shortly in 2012), for Rick Santorum (again 2012).

Taking your ball and going home is giving up which is really the only way to guarantee you lose. Because the far right is going to show up. They show up on non-presidential years, they show up in off cycle elections. It's part of how Massachusetts ended up with Scott Brown. Doing nothing, achieves nothing.

[TeddyR]

56. So exactly right

Saying "my candidate must be the nominee or I'm going home" is shortsighted and literally (not figuratively) could damage this country. I don't care if you are a Bernie or Hillary supporter, do you really think that President Cruz or Trump is a better option? Do you want Trump deciding whether we torture detainees, or building a wall on the southern border, or deciding the next SC nominee (I mean Christ, he might nominate Sarah Palin!)

[NJCher]

69. I don't really think you can say that

immature way to look at our system

because they were never part of the system to begin with. I'm a college teacher and I hear their conversations. I know what they are thinking because they want to talk about the election--for the first time in their lives.

I never voted until Bill Clinton. To me, all the candidates were just old white guys who looked the same. There was no reason to get involved.

It is unfortunate that the Clintons went to the dark side, but they did, and now we are lucky to have a candidate like Bernie.



Cher

[TeddyR]

94. I'm a bit confused

Are you claiming that Bernie Sanders is more revolutionary and appealing to younger voters than President Obama? I'm a lifelong Democrat and Obama is the most inspiring Democrat of my life.

[A Simple Game]

89. You misunderstand, the ball is not ours to take home. Rewarding bad behavior only perpetuates it.

It's probably all moot anyway, if Hillary wins the nomination she will lose the general election with or without Bernie supporters help and the Democratic party will be severely wounded and may not recover.

[ccinamon]

99. Rewarding bad behavior only perpetuates it. NAILED!

best summation of the situation and one I totally can agree with!

[LW1977]

174. And you will have helped it!

Thanks in advance.

[Gore1FL]

101. I don't know if "immature" is the right word.

Perhaps short-sited. I do understand them though. I remember when the GOP was left of the Current Dem party. People like Hillary running as a Democrat is unnerving. She is right of Ford, Nixon, and Eisenhower.

Mondale was the last Democrat that got the nomination.

[Ken Burch]

118. It's up to HRC and the party establishment to actively reach out to them.

We need the kids, we need them to believe and to feel that this matters.

They aren't wrong...and they aren't asking for anything the "grown-ups" have any good reason to dismiss.

The answer is engagement and validation.

There is nobody who will ONLY vote Dem in the fall if we tell the dreamers to shut up and know their place. We don't need to be dreary and fatalistic to win.

[Oldenuff]

138. I understand the thinking.

You have the Repukes on one side,busy selling us out.Then you have Clinton on the same hand seemingly doing the same.Same old game,different name and party.If we want to simply preserve the status quo,and be in the control of the rich and powerful,then many see no difference between any of the candidates,no matter the party affiliation or Brand-name.

Honest to goodness,I don't see the allure of Clinton.

Why not go all in for democracy?Why not take one last shot at getting our country back under control of the people? Do any of us REALLY believe that Clinton will be the champion that can lead us back to Democratic values?..only if Goldman Sachs tells her it is ok.

[LW1977]

169. +1

Grow the fuck up, Bernie bros!

[Betty Karlson]

202. "They feel disenfranchised"

For much the same reason, turn-out among PoC and the poor was very low for decades, even after the voting rights act.

[NoJacketRequired]

2. I also have another name for them

It's people who won't be affected by a president that stacks the Supreme Court with conservative justices.

Or a president that decides to rescind Obama's executive actions to provide work permits to young people that were brought here as kids

Or a Republican president that decides to stop Muslims from entering the U.S

I mean I would also throw a temper tantrum and refuse to vote if I were a young white male with nothing to lose

[bettyellen]

20. yep, nothing to lose. naked self interest as much as any other voter.

[Warren DeMontague]

50. 'Nothing to lose' like Hillary supporters who live in multimillion dollar manhattan condos

For whom the idea of a fifteen dollar minimum wage is an interesting abstraction and nothing more?

[bettyellen]

54. Hillary has tons of low income supporters. And they have been slammed here for being ignorant

time and time again. Sour grapes is not the way to go.

[Warren DeMontague]

55. If you say so.

Still, you're the one making the accusations, here- like how Sanders supporters have 'nothing to lose'. Seems to me a lot of them are supporting him because the alternative offers "nothing to gain".

[bettyellen]

73. nope, we were talking about those who will not vote in the general election. they are often viewed

as having "nothing to lose" and their rallying cry is "bern it down".
I am sure you're as familiar with that analysis as it has been in op meds posted here for months. what is even worse is those talking about voting Trump to blow up D.C. that shit is crazy.

[Warren DeMontague]

167. Well I'm gonna support the nominee, I always support the nominee.

Rinse, repeat.

But we're not there, yet. Those conversations are premature in the context of a still-being-fought primary. IMHO.

[bettyellen]

168. True, was just supplying the context you omitted.

[Warren DeMontague]

176. fair enough.

When that day comes, I think you'll find I'm quite open in sharing my opinion of anyone who isn't gonna go to the polls and pull the (D) lever. For whatever reason, whoever the candidate.

[ccinamon]

103. WOW....Perfectly said!

"Seems to me a lot of them are supporting him because the alternative offers "nothing to gain"."

I'm 58, and that is how I feel as well.

[brush]

117. Nothing to gain? How about SCOTUS appointments who are not right wing ideologes . . .

like Scalia who will hurt the country for generations?

[Warren DeMontague]

166. Any SCOTUS appointments Sanders makes will be at least as progressive as Hillary's.

Try again.

[bettyellen]

170. Nope- he has only one litmus test- Citizen's United. And he deserves every bit of grief he is going

to get for saying so. I have to question his judgement going off half cocked like that.



http://watch.knpb.org/video/2365669386/

[Warren DeMontague]

173. Saying that is a litmus test is not the same thing as saying that is his only consideration.

Don't be facile.

By that logic, Hillary would nominate ANYONE, since Hillary probably hasn't listed ANY "litmus tests". At least not in so many words.

Why? because it is de rigeur to say "no litmus tests", that's DC beltway-speak for "of course I have litmus tests, but I'm not going to say it out loud"

[bettyellen]

175. It is his ONLY litmus test. That is FUCKED for women. Not acceptable.

He just fucked himself really really badly. Ouch.

[Warren DeMontague]

178. You honestly are suggesting the guy with the 100% NARAL rating is gonna nominate an anti-choicer.

C'mon.

[bettyellen]

180. Why the hell does he say ONE litmus test? I think he usually says what he means.

Hopefully he will fix this tomorrow. This is fucked.

[Warren DeMontague]

183. Personally, I would've appreciated it if the debates could've spent some time on reproductive choice

unfortunately whoever was in charge of determining the focus and topics of the past two seemed obsessively determined to keep the spotlight on foreign policy. Go figure.

Roe v. Wade, like marijuana legalization, seems to be one topic the powers that be definitely don't want our candidates spending very much time opining on.

Hmmmmm.

[Matt_in_STL]

212. Pretty sure there was an op today where Hillary actually put specific abortion bans on the table

Oh yeah, here it is

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511248459#post89

So we know the rights of women aren't going to be a litmus test. Abortion should never be on the table. It is between a woman and her doctor.

[brush]

204. Try again what?

I'm advocating for a dem to select the next SCOTUS nominee, not rehashing this ugly Hillary v Bernie fight that has taken over this site and looms large over whether we win the election as many followers of one the factions have vowed to sit the election out if their candidate doesn't get the nomination.

You try again.

Don't bring me into it.

[Warren DeMontague]

207. Well thanks for your contribution, Mister Non Sequitur.

However, there is a context to the subthread, the thread, and the larger forum it's all in.


If you don't want to fight about the primaries, the lounge might work better. Just a thought.

[brush]

208. I'll post wherever I want and will be voting for the dem nominee whoever it is in the GE

[Warren DeMontague]

209. far be it for me to suggest anything different, man.

that's what I do, too.

[Beacool]

100. Are you for real???????

Hillary's supporters are all millionaires???

What a load of crap........

[Gore1FL]

105. Hillary has a lot of millionaire supporters.

Why do you thing that is crap and/or funny?

[1StrongBlackMan]

157. And as quiet as it is kept ... so does Sanders. eom.

Last edited Wed Feb 17, 2016, 10:47 AM - Edit history (1)

[Gore1FL]

162. Clearly. Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield are a notable two.

The person I responded to seemed rather aghast that Hillary had millionaire supporters.

[Gore1FL]

182. I was referring to post 100.

The one I replied to.

I agreed with what you had to say. I find hat I often do.

[Warren DeMontague]

184. Sorry, my bad!

[Warren DeMontague]

165. Reading Comprehension. It's not just a good idea, it's... yeah, it's a good idea.

[Maedhros]

46. I've heard your stale line of reasoning over and over and over and over.

I will vote for the candidate that best represents my interests. If the Democrats do not field a candidate that represents my interests better than another candidate - say, someone like Jill Stein - then I will not vote for a Democrat. I will not be coerced, bullied, or shamed into voting for a bad candidate.

If the Democratic Party wants my vote, then they must put up or shut up. Give me someone with integrity and vision to vote for. Keep trotting out weak sauce and I'll take my vote elsewhere.

[VulgarPoet]

77. +1.

Growing up, I watched my parents hold their noses and vote for the lesser of two evils. If Hillary gets the nomination, after all the shit I've seen come out of her camp, that just tells me these people don't represent me.

[Maedhros]

149. Further, the Democratic Party has gone out of its way to make us unwelcome in their Party.

They called us 'retarded,' told us to 'eat our peas', dismissed our concerns as complaining by 'the professional Left.'

Yet they expect us to hand over our votes with no questions asked.

[Jackilope]

159. I tend to think they would rather lose us than their corporate sponsors.

It is the illusion of choice. As soon as they saw us embracing Sanders, their true colors came out. It is pathetic how transparent and how interwoven the love of money and corporate favors is in the New Democratic Party.

[VulgarPoet]

177. The age of loyalty oaths is over with.

This election is the straw that will break the camel's back. We need a labor party proper anyway.

[ccinamon]

106. Excellent! This is exactly where I am at as well!

"If the Democratic Party wants my vote, then they must put up or shut up. Give me someone with integrity and vision to vote for. Keep trotting out weak sauce and I'll take my vote elsewhere."

[chervilant]

110. I wish we still had a like button

for individual posts.

I feel the same way, and I think a LOT of people feel this way.

#NotMeUs

[jwirr]

111. Exactly.

[Jester Messiah]

80. Well, that's one way of looking at it. But from the other side...

if you want someone's vote, you have to consider their interests. They don't owe you a damned thing, so why should they employ their vote on your behalf? Work with them, you maybe can get Bernie for president. Go it alone, you get Trump. Which do you prefer?

[CBGLuthier]

206. They have nothing to lose because all the people that keep getting elected have already given it

away. Thanks to Clinton's policies, and the last 15 years of bullshit compromises, there are no good jobs left even for the much lauded young white male.

BTW, my two daughters who support Sanders don't like being called young white males.

Your message is basically if She gets the nomination everyone needs to suck it and support someone who they think is not a good choice because, the only other choice is worse.

The fucking game playing of the two party system that forces everyone to settle for less has to end. I for one am sick to death of having to choose between the lesser of TWO evils and don;t want any more off it.

[HooptieWagon]

3. As a liberal Democrat who's had to hold my nose for 40 years...

...I can understand the feeling.

[Bjornsdotter]

17. Ditto n/t

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

22. It's our turn now! Viva la revolucion!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[HooptieWagon]

23. Yep. Been waiting a long time for this.

[840high]

35. Yes. I refuse to do it anymore.

[Kittycat]

187. Nearly 24 years here, and what has it gotten us?

Force fed candidates of their choosing. Funded by their own self interests instead of those they represent. What happens when we say no more? Do they agree to listen to us? Or do we really have to keep up with this bullshit that it will get worse, if... Because honestly, when does it start getting better?

[HooptieWagon]

188. If we continue to hold our noses and vote for them...

They'll continue to give us the middle finger and insult us for 4 years, until they demand our votes once again. As long as they get elected, they can continue to stuff wads of corporate cash in their pockets and do the bidding of their masters. Once they stop getting votes, they get cut off and dropped like a hot potato.

Not telling anyone what to do here, just explaining how it works.

We can't replace the entire bunch of crooks immediately, but we CAN elect a leader that will show the way.

[Kittycat]

189. And we keep sliding further to the right. N/t

[HooptieWagon]

190. That is what they're paid to do.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. I will vote for her if I have to, but I will be crying inside over what might have been.

Come on, Bernie!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. My nose holding days for the lesser of two evils are over.

[Bernin4U]

7. Or they see it as a choosing "tough love" over enabling

Regardless of how anyone else wants to characterize it.

[NoJacketRequired]

8. Sanders supporters obviously have no problems

With a conservative Supreme Court and a republican president

[Lorien]

14. Actually, we do. That's why we don't support Hillary Clinton

The Patriot Act isn't Patriotic, and Hillary is NOT a Democrat. Labels mean nothing. Actions and policies are *everything*. The DNC can return to it's left-of-center roots and represent us, or it can wither and die. America won't move forward with two Right Wings.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

24. Wow, from that graphic, the choice is clear...

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[Lorien]

31. Her supporters won't even try to deny that her policies are far right of center

They won't talk about the issues. That's why her entire campaign is built around her gender, faux "pragmatism", and attacks on Bernie. The giant red arrow pointing to the right, smothering the blue below it says it all.

[SammyWinstonJack]

32. Progressive, yeah sure.

[NoJacketRequired]

33. Can I have some of what you're smoking?

You honestly think Clinton would nominate another Scalia to the Supreme Court?

If you do, can I please have some of what you're smoking?

[earthshine]

44. You are obviously smoking the straw.

Another straw-man argument from Hillary supporters. You mischaracterize Bernie's position and then attack the effigy you created.

No one thinks Hillary will choose SC judges from a right-wing pool.

Hillary is center-left on social issues, and leans center-right on economics. Wall Street is her backer and her friend.

In retrospect, I really believe Hillary would've been a better president than Obama. She's so much a fighter. He isn't.

But this is eight years later. A better champion, namely Bernie, has emerged.

[Jester Messiah]

84. At best, another Kennedy.

50/50 probability of a favorable outcome on any given case.

[MerryBlooms]

37. That graph is very troubling. Would you please post the link to the page where you found it.

[Fumesucker]

60. Here... There's a good bit more to the site as well including a test to locate you on the chart

http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2016

[MerryBlooms]

87. I don't see the result of Clinton personally taking that quiz.

Honestly, having gone through the questions, some of the questions are pretty crappy. I have no doubt that you and I, and a whole lot of other folks, are clearly to the left of Clinton, but that 'quiz' is lousy proof of anything.

[Maedhros]

152. Yes, those quizzes are based on some very flimsy premises.

However, Hillary's record is enough to prove her conservative bona fides.

[DJ13]

137. America won't move forward with two Right Wings.

Bird with two right wings only flies in circles.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

140. I took the test!

Here's some familiar folks:


And here is me:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-7.25&soc=-7.54
I'm a fucking saint!

[DJ13]

160. Economic Left/Right: -7.75 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.49

https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-7.75&soc=-5.49

[840high]

36. That's why I don't want Hillary.

[MisterP]

71. even if her buddies hadn't been the ones who gave us Clarence Thomas,

there's still this
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511248971

[chervilant]

116. Hi11ary supporters

"obviously have no problem with" fear-mongering their progressive brethren.

See, two can play that silly game.

I hope that all the Hi11ary supporters will see the merit of supporting Bernie. He is our best candidate for POTUS.

[NoJacketRequired]

121. The primaries will decide that.

If he wins the Democraric primaries then I will definitely vote for him.

Hillary is my number one choice, but if Bernie wins the nomination I definitely won't throw a temper tantrum at the voting booth and take my ball and go home.

[joshcryer]

10. It's like people don't remember Bush's years.

[Fumesucker]

43. Like the Iraq war?

But we are supposed to forget that part and who voted for and against the worst foreign policy blunder arguably in American history, who exhibited foresight and who exhibited naked self aggrandizement.

[joshcryer]

49. Well, we voted for two who voted for it.

Kerry and Biden.

I don't know why Clinton gets less forgiveness, and why her 1/535 vote is more significant than Bush's desire to go to war.

[navarth]

98. we voted for them because they were the only choice obviously

Hillary is NOT the only choice. No more no less forgiveness.

[joshcryer]

141. Well I voted for Dean.

But supported and defended Kerry against swift boating.

[navarth]

143. Good on ya for both

I went door to door for Kerry. But I thought he sucked as a candidate. He's a much better SOS. That doesn't mean I forgave him for that stupid 'voted for it before I voted against it' business. Nor do I forgive Clinton.

[joshcryer]

150. So would go door to door for Clinton?

If she won?

[navarth]

151. that's a tough one

If the Republican is bad enough, and I thought she needed it....but Kerry was only guilty in my eyes of the war vote. That and being a tone deaf candidate. Hillary has more offenses on her account, so it's not a direct comparison. But yeah if I thought the Reptile was that much worse than her I would. Makes me cringe to think of it.

[joshcryer]

155. I don't anticipate a need.

She'd get my vote and that would be it.

I might break a sweat if somehow Trump got the Latino vote. If Rubio got the nod I'd have to put my shoes on and go outside.

I'm just saying, that vote didn't stop be from supporting Kerry or electing Biden and it annoys me when Clinton gets a double standard on it. It's giving Bush a pass.

[Lorien]

12. Amen to that. Plus, what if she *does* bomb Iran? That will make

Iraq look like a cakewalk and lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. Their blood would be on my hands if I voted for her, knowing that she desires a war with Iran and has promised a "much more muscular" foreign policy than Obama's. Talking about killing always seems to bring a smile to her face, and that scares the Hell out of me.

It's not the duty of left of center voters to bend to the will of a party that has been hijacked by right wing authoritarian oligarchs. It's the duty of the DNC to support left of center candidates who REPRESENT left of center voters! They act as if we owe them our loyalty, when the opposite is true.

[Cheese Sandwich]

13. It's the same reason people riot and burn down a grocery store, even though they need groceries

Because there is no way for our legitimate grievances to be addressed within the existing political framework.

It's too rigged. The media, the politicians, big business, the political industry, the cops, it's all too powerful. Even when we're right, we can't win. Even when we're in the majority, they still won't let us win. So we end up in jail, or we lose our house, our drinking water is poison, we have $100,000 in student loans. This system is killing us. So sometimes a riot is all you have left.


'A riot is the language of the unheard' -MLK

[dana_b]

79. I like this. It does feel like the only time that

we get taken seriously is when they're looking for our votes.

and MLK's quote - so appropriate.

[Attorney in Texas]

16. Most millennials seem to think that Clinton is simply the best of all the Republicans running for

president.

If Kasich had run as a Democrat, I don't think I'd vote for him even if he won the Democratic nomination because his agenda is too conservative no matter what his party identification (it's not so far fetched; remember, Bloomberg has been both a Republican and a Democrat and Eisenhower was recruited by both the Democrats and the Republicans).

I don't feel that way about Clinton, but I have heard from plenty of Democrats who feel that way and its not as if I don't understand why they feel that way.

[Marr]

19. This ought to be a factor in Hillary supporters' thinking, but it isn't.

Whether you like it or not, there are a lot of liberals who simply will not vote for Hillary Clinton. Call them bad Democrats if you like, call them fair weather friends, call them assholes, whatever-- it doesn't change the fact that it *will* be a factor in the vote count.

If you're aware that you're alienating a portion of your constituency with your chosen candidate-- if they tell you right up front that your candidate is too far to the right for them and will not have their support-- then you really can't put all the blame on that constituency when your candidate loses.

[monicaangela]

34. I agree Marr

As many have asked, will Bernie do the right thing and endorse Hillary if he sees the population does not or cannot support him? I ask the same question. If Hillary Clinton sees she is not acceptable and is dividing the democratic vote, will she step out and support Bernie? It appears more people are saying they could never vote for Clinton that there are saying they could never vote for Bernie.

[hifiguy]

41. Welded at the hip to Wall Street and the MIC and their evil interests,

taker of advice from mass-murdering wanted war criminal, advocate of war forever everywhere, willing to put reproductive rights on the table for a constitutional "compromise," unwilling to hold to any position which is principled to the point where it may cost her a vote. Stands for nothing but her own self-advancement by any means available to her. Stranger to truth.

A (mushily) pro-choice Republican in all but name.

[GoneFishin]

135. People who like Hillary's economic policies are closer to Jeb than to Bernie. So maybe they don't

care as long as Bernie doesn't win. Maybe for them it's ABB.

[jillan]

21. I will not vote FOR her. But I will vote against the GOP nominee.

[navarth]

107. +1

[left-of-center2012]

25. I fear Bernie's young voters will stay home

Hillary doesn't speak to their hope for the future.
She's too invested in protecting the past, and Wall Street.

[HooptieWagon]

38. I don't just fear it, I'm certain of it.

Clinton has nothing to offer Millenials. They won't vote for her, and that generation will be lost by the Democrats.

[left-of-center2012]

92. They might vote for Bloomberg n/t

[HooptieWagon]

95. Youth and lefties? No way.

And Bloomberg won't enter if Clinton is the nominee.

[EdwardBernays]

26. The only way I'd vote for her

Is if Ted Cruz gets the nomination.

Because I like everyone else hate Ted Cruz.

[Roy Ellefson]

27. every Democrat since 1976

I turned 18 in 1976 and have voted for every Democrat in every presidential election...usually enthusiastically. I remember 1991-92 in grad school at the University of Iowa discussing the caucuses/primaries with a fellow liberal who was a huge Clinton supporter--I remarked that I had misgivings, that he wasn't liberal enough...eventually i was convinced that, "Yes, we all know he isn't liberal enough, but winning the Presidency is what's important...we have to buck up and support our nominee...because change comes slowly."

So, I voted for Clinton in '92 and '96...I recall during the whitewater/Monica nonsense calling so-called Democrats (who were huge Clinton supporters) off the ledge--they thought he should resign I told them that was idiotic and there really was a vast right wing conspiracy. They were Clinton's biggest supporters but were almost eager to support his resignation to kowtow to right wing demands and opinion makers.

I remember 2000 when we had decent candidate who chose a crappy running mate to again kowtow to right wing demands to show his distance from an "immoral president." Gore would have been a decent president but once again listening to right wingers led to the nonsense in 2000. We won that election but Gore wouldn't fight and we were all told that we needed to be more patriotic so just accept the stolen presidency.

We were told by corporate Dems that "impeachment was off the table" when Bush lied to Congress and the American people.

In 2004 we were told we had to nominate someone with military credentials and that was our only chance to beat Bush.

In 2008 I enthusiastically supported the historic nominee who seemed like he was promising to finally usher in a more liberal/progressive period. I then found out that we had to compromise with the party that hated him or we would lose elections and become unpopular. Well we compromised and we lost elections...we were fortunate that he Obama was reelected but by that time the air was out of the "hope balloon"...we just needed to accept what we could get.

Now in 2016 I now have a candidate who represents the ideals of the Democratic Party I imagine when I was growing up...(idolizing the Kennedy's, appreciating LBJ's solid domestic record...feeling proud of a litany of great Democrats...Humphrey, Gaylord Nelson, McGovern, Julian Bond, Muskie, Richards, Chisholm etc. etc.)

But now I'm told by a president whom I voted for twice that I am the Democratic version of a tea partier...that I'm naive...that I am foolish...that I want freebies.

Well, I'm 57 years old and I've been waiting for a long time so I'm voting for Bernie Sanders despite what Bill says...and Bill should know that his words and the words of Hillary and her surrogates are making it possible that I might not pull the lever for Hillary if she wins the nomination.

[AlbertCat]

65. In 2008 I enthusiastically supported the historic nominee

But now I'm told by a president whom I voted for twice that ....


**********

a Dem nominee and then president who admires Reagan!!!

Just more of the same stuff you were complaining about happening in all those earlier elections.... Repug Lite, not Dems.

[ccinamon]

114. Standing O from a 58 year old!

Well said, especially your final paragraph!

[jwirr]

131. 74 years old and totally agree with you.

[noiretextatique]

221. we are the same age

and i agree 100%. i have backed a party that cynically manipulated race (bill clinton), with disastrous results. i will never vote for another sell-out, triangulating, corporate dem.

[floriduck]

28. I'm over 65. How does this rationale apply to me?! nm

[Martin Eden]

63. If both choices in the general election have often been unpalatable to you ...

... then this "rationale" might apply. Eventually, enough is enough.

I'm 58 and in a Democratic primary I refuse to support any candidate who voted to give GW Bush authority to invade Iraq.

However, in the general election, in order to keep a Rethug out of the White House, I would vote Hillary Clinton if there is any chance my home state of Illinois could be tipped to the R.

[floriduck]

68. I'm glad for you.

We have both made our choices. I tend to vote for only those who represent my interests. And my interests rest neither with Hillary now any Republican.

[Martin Eden]

139. I'm still willing to vote for the lesser "evil"

... because the greater evil would do real damage to my interests.

My personal interests include maintaining Social Security and Medicare for my retirement years, and avoiding another hit like the 2007-2008 crash.

But my biggest issues as a voter in addition to economic justice are human/civil rights, reversing the militarism of our foreign policy, saving our democracy from oligarchy, and long term environmental sustainability. It's more about the future for my grandchildren than my own finances, which are reasonably good.

[monicaangela]

30. I understand in a way

why many of these voters feel this way. I don't agree with them, but I have noticed for many years now a population that feels we don't have any ability to make decisions through congressional representation. There are so many lobbyist that continue to get laws written and passed in the favor of those that are sending them to Washington and to local and state offices that the regular voting public are beginning to feel there is no need to vote.

Why vote for a candidate that you feel will not listen to you or try to change the system when they get into office? That is what I hear from many of the millennials I speak with. Many become disillusioned and feel it isn't worth the time or trouble to get out and vote if the only choice they have is someone they feel is the lesser of two evils or worse, just as bad as the person they would never vote for.

[Maedhros]

48. America's foreign policy is a perfect example of how voting changes nothing.

From Reagan through Obama, we have had five different Presidents from two different Parties, yet our bellicose foreign policy has continued with only cosmetic differences.

Obama took the football from Bush and continued to run, expanding military operations in Africa by 217%, increasing drone usage in multiple undeclared wars, and even destroying a country that presented no threat to our nation. Tell the millennials again how electing Obama changed anything.

[monicaangela]

81. President Obama has made a lot of social change in this nation

He has continued the wars, because the wars were left to him by the Bush administration. I don't agree with his drone program and his increase of action in Africa along with his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. I would never tell millennials they would have a better chance getting the changes in foreign policy with Clinton over Sanders. They know, and I also believe the change will come if Bernie wins the presidency and probably won't come if the War Hawk candidate wins. So I won't be telling the millennials how electing Obama didn't change a lot where foreign policy is concerned because they unlike you know the reasons the foreign policy hasn't changed much.

[Gene Debs]

123. President Obama hasn't exactly been a warrior for social change. It's more like

the tide of social change has rolled along on its own, mostly without his help and in some cases in spite of his foot-dragging. It baffles me why people continue to characterize him as this proactive crusader when, from what I've seen, the defining attribute of his character is his remarkable passivity. The only time I've seen him really hustle on anything was when Wall Street wanted something.

He is a very gifted talker, though.

[Maedhros]

142. I believe you helped make my point.

The wars were left to Obama by Bush, and Obama maintained them and added more - does this not confirm the continuance of Bush foreign policy?

Also, I did not make the claim that nothing changed under Obama (although I would challenge that Obama made the social change happen - correlation is not causation). I presented foreign policy as an example of something that doesn't change regardless of how we vote.

I would be cautious in telling other posters what they know. You could be wrong.

[BainsBane]

45. I would never suggest naivety

I think they know precisely what they are doing.

The system doesn't change because your guy gets the nomination. That changes a face, not the system. Any pretense otherwise doesn't hold water. I have no doubt such people are making a rational determination that they prefer the Democrat be defeated. They don't support the Democratic Party, its platform or its voting constituencies. They support Bernie. Exit polls show he is strongest among independents, not Democrats. In Iowa, Clinton won Democrats handily. In NH, she and Bernie were within a single point among Democrats. It isn't surprising that people who are independent or otherwise despise the Democratic party would refuse to vote for a Democrat. Clearly they have determined that women's rights, LGBT rights, civil rights, voting rights, and campaign finance--all of which hinge on SCOTUS appointments--aren't important to them. Some may even wish to see those rights eroded. Refusing to vote for the Democrat helps ensure that will happen.

[JonLeibowitz]

52. What reason do I have to think that campaign finance will improve in a Clinton presidency?

The DNC (at her behest, let's be honest...) just rolled back Obama's signature campaign finance pledge. She has allied super PACs and is testing the limits of campaign finance law with regards to coordination. She has not committed to releasing the source of all soft money.

So all hard data I have tells me that she is not pro- campaign finance reform. On the other hand, we have her word on how much she cares about small dollar contributions and reforming the system.

Can you see why some of us don't believe there is any possibility of real campaign finance reform under a Clinton white house?

[BainsBane]

72. Her position on the issues is clearly outlined

Last edited Tue Feb 16, 2016, 11:45 PM - Edit history (2)

On her site: Hillaryclintonsupporters.com/issues.

If you think a president Trump or Cruz will appoint better justices on the issues you care about, by all means support them.

Interesting you didn't dispute that part about rolling back the rights of the non-straight white male majority. That is of course the key dividing line in this election. That the Democratic party represents that majority is the transgression that some simply will not forgive.

[JonLeibowitz]

76. I care about record. She can say anything she wants -- I care about the evidence.

And it appears you have nothing to offer on that front, so this conversation appears fruitless. Good day.

[navarth]

112. THIS. nt

[jeff47]

58. So glad to hear that Reagan had no effect on government.

Oh wait! He did. And radically shifted the country to the right.

[BainsBane]

62. That wasn't the point.

The OP references a corrupt system. That System is not changed because you happen to like the guy in office.

As for Reagan, he tapped into the country's shift to the right and benefited from it.

[jeff47]

67. And that's how he changed the system.

Now, what exactly is Sanders supporting? The same damn thing, just in the opposite direction.

[AlbertCat]

70. I think they know precisely what they are doing.

And then you type a paragraph that is clueless.... and subtly meant to be damning.


"Clearly they have determined that women's rights, LGBT rights, civil rights, voting rights, and campaign finance--all of which hinge on SCOTUS appointments--aren't important to them. "

No, no you don't "know precisely".

[BainsBane]

146. Are you disputing the GOP would appoint nominees

hostile to those issues?

I know full well they justify it differently, but to refuse to vote for a Democrat entails a decision that such issues are not as important as the voter's anger toward the Democratic party. That is precisely what will happen if a GOP president appoints 2 or 3 new justices. There is no way around that. People can claim whatever reasons they want, and I have no doubt they believe them, but ultimately they will have decided those reasons take precedence over the basic rights of most of the American population that depends on a precariously balanced court to even be considered full citizens. They don't think of it in those terms because we simply aren't important enough to them to even think much about. If they are successful in making their anger at the Democratic Party felt through the GE, the result will be a GOP president who will make appointments that will strip away the rights of the non-straight white male majority. Whether or not that is their intention, it would be the consequence.

[BeanMusical]

147. +1

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. Kids know we live in an oligarchy

We used to take a different take in Mexico. We voted... to remain in practice. Because we knew we had to take to the streets anyway.

[krawhitham]

51. More and more by the day

You can't run a campaign on smearing the other guy and expect his supports to come around for the general

She had two choices build herself up or beat Bernie down. She is going with #2, it did not work in 08 and I do not think it will work now

All beating Bernie down does is prove to his supports that the system is corrupt, so why bother

[Feeling the Bern]

57. I'm a Bernie supporter and this is stupid

I won't vote FOR Hillary if she's the nominee. Even though my vote will be listed as FOR Hillary, in my mind, it was a protest vote AGAINST the Republican.

[orpupilofnature57]

83. + 1000000000000 !!!!!!!!!!!

[Gene Debs]

128. Honestly, though, when it comes down to a choice between a Republican and a

Democrat who pushes Republican policy, why bother?

[Feeling the Bern]

136. Because I'd rather have a president I agree with 60% of the time than one I agree with

0%. I am not a purist. I want Bernie. . .I can reluctantly accept Hillary.

[Billsmile]

61. You Have To Read The Article....

Or the highlighted quote will be taken WAY out of context.

[Got it]

64. Call it what you will

No way in hell will a regime changing, corporate toady ever get my vote. Never!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

74. The best reason in the world is I don't want to. Mason Williams

[nyabingi]

75. Whom you choose to vote for is a personal decision,

as personal as what kind of food you eat, how comb your hair (or not), whom you love, etc. Choosing NOT to vote is also a freedom you can exercise and I can say with 100% certainty that if Hillary Clinton ends up being the nominee, I will NOT be casting a vote for her.

I've voted for every Democratic presidential candidate since my first opportunity to cast a vote in 1992, and each time dealing with the same disappointment, dealing with the guilt that comes with knowing you help elect someone who did many things you didn't like. At least with Bill, Al, John, and Barack I felt some hint of excitement to cast a vote for them, but not so with Hillary - she is a different type of individual completely as far as I'm concerned.

This decision is in no way "irrational", but based on many facts and consideration of those facts. I literally couldn't live with myself if I helped to get her elected to anything because she's placed herself on the level of the Republicans in my opinion.

[ghostsinthemachine]

78. I've yet to meet one of these people.....

And I hang with a younger, Bernie bunch crowd a lot. And they will all vote for H in the General when they get the opportunity (and they will).

[dana_b]

91. well that's good for you and Hillary

and you may never "meet" anyone here, but this thread is full of them:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1248641

[orpupilofnature57]

82. I'm 58 and he has me lock , stock and support !! I'd vote for Hillary but I wouldn't want to . n/t

[WillyT]

85. HUGE K & R !!!

[onehandle]

122. HUGE Subject Title

[Beacool]

86. They are young, immature and emotional.

Normal for the very young, but not the wisest thing to do when the other option will be either Trump, Rubio or Cruz. Do they think that they will do better under a Republican president?

If that's the case, they can stay home and sit on their hands. Personally, it doesn't make much difference to me. I don't have college debt, I don't personally entertain having an abortion and I have health insurance. If these things are of no concern to them, they can let a Republican win.

[Gene Debs]

130. "They are young, immature and emotional." Wow. How magnificently

dismissive of people's legitimate concerns. Could you be any more insulting?

And that, precisely, is why Hillary Clinton alienates so many people. Come on, fess up...your name says Beacool, but you're really Madeleine Albright, aren't you?

[Odin2005]

144. Keep on shitting on Millennials, that will help Hillary!!!

[Beacool]

164. Well, they are the ones acting like children.

In 2008, there were some of us who worked very hard to get Hillary elected. It didn't work out, most of us were mature enough to vote for Obama. What was the other option, voting for McCain?

If they can't see that a Democrat would be better for them and the country as a whole than a Republican, then they do need to grow up. In life we don't always get what we want.

[DrBulldog]

93. And as long as Bill Clinton keeps kicking dirt on Bernie's supporters ...

... then, if Hillary gets the nod, don't expect all of them to turn around and vote for her!

[PonyUp]

124. Same here. n/t

[litlbilly]

104. That absoulutely nails it IMO

[SciDude]

113. I will not vote for another Clinton because

I do not vote for Republicans or Neoliberals. Well, I did vote for Obama but there was no other choice.

I have the luxury of living in a deep-blue state so I will never have to feel pressured to vote for her (should she win the primary) in a general election so I will vote Green or simply write in Sanders. However, I really think Sanders will win the nomination and the real question will be whether or not Clinton fans will vote in the general for an actual Democrat or not?

[still_one]

115. Posting an article encouraging people not to vote for the Democratic nominee. What a disingenuous

piece of garbage.

[still_one]

129. Because this is the DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, and the TOS are NOT to post articles

encouraging people NOT to vote for the Democratic nominee

and that is exactly what the disingenuous OP is doing.

[onehandle]

120. Translation: They are rooting for President CruzTrumpRubioBush.

See Ralph Nader, Year 2000.

Ralph Nader 2000 Campaign Interview:
Will Ralph Nader become Al Gore's worst nightmare?

Of more immediate interest, at least to Al Gore, are Nader's respectable poll numbers: 7 to 10 percent in California as of June, 6 percent nationally. If California tips Green enough, Bush could win the state and the whole damn election.

Which, Nader confided to Outside in June, wouldn't be so bad. When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush."

http://www.outsideonline.com/1837851/ralph-nader-2000-campaign-interview

[still_one]

127. Nader is an arragont asshole, who lives on his millions from his mutual funds and B.S.

[PonyUp]

145. You just described most of the 1%. n/t

[GoneFishin]

132. That nails it. I see many posts from people trying to convince themselves it is untrue. But

those are facts, like them or not.

If you win by cheating, lying, extortion, or rotten Rovian smear tactics then don't expect the other side to knock themselves out to support you if "won" through unethical methods. They might have some McHales Navy reruns to catch up on.

[noamnety]

134. I keep seeing posts likening Sanders to McGovern

"Remember that time 50 years ago, when we ran a true anti-war candidate, and he got trounced? So, that's proof that the party can never do that again."

Option A: We keep running pro-war pro-corporate candidates and watch our party lead our country into the giant frog simmer.

Option B: We refuse to play, potentially sacrifice 4 years of the oval office, send the message that we won't vote for Monsanto and Goldman Sachs, and the next 50 years are filled with: "Remember that time we ran someone who was voting for war, kept glorifying it as a business opportunity, and was selling us out to Wall Street? Remember why we lost that election? We can never do that again."

The thing is, doesn't matter if they got a donkey or an elephant on their lapel, the establishment is literally killing us. Boiling on the right, simmering on the left, but it's killing us.

[LW1977]

179. SCOTUS is at stake!

That's a REALLY stupid strategy!

[noamnety]

213. simmer simmer simmer

Again, the alternative, allowing the dems to move to the right of where the republicans used to be, has been killing us (as well as hundreds of thousands of other people around the globe), and will continue to do so.

That, also, is a really stupid strategy.

[basselope]

148. I ONLY came back to this party for Sanders

The democratic party left me many years ago when it started nominating corporatists like Clinton.

I did however vote for Gore in 2000 as I believed he was being dragged down by the stink of the Clinton presidency and wouldn't continue Clinton's disastrous policies.

I came back for a short time in 2003/2004 to support Howard Dean, but when the party decided on a war voter instead of Dean, I passed on voting for the democrat.

In 2008 I saw a choice between two center right candidates, so i voted Green in 2008 and 2012.

Bernie is the only REAL democrat in this race, unless the democratic party is as lost as the GOP.

I hope for its sake that it is not.

[VulgarPoet]

215. Sounds about right.

And frankly, I'm sick of getting labeled as a young white male (I'm only half-white), sick of being labeled a petulant child (is that how you plan to pull voters away from a candidate that brought people back to the party?), and most of all, sick of the same motherfuckers who told me "this is good for you, this is what's best for you, don't fight this" advocating for the Democratic Party out of one side of their mouths, and then advocating for someone who has instigated more military conflict in the past fifteen years than any politician who comes to mind out the other.

If Hillary gets the nomination, that is the sign to me that the party has pulled irrevocably, unsalvagably, and untenably towards right wing neoliberalism.

I will not vote for another neoliberal.

[mikehiggins]

154. My problem with HRC is very simple. I don't believe a word she says.

I will vote for her if she is the nominee, only because the GOPuke nominee would be unthinkable.

Lying, pandering, hypocritical typical politician offering nothing besides platitudes and distortions in order to win, no matter what the cost.

[Starry Messenger]

156. It's every American's right to be an idiot.

[dana_b]

158. or a pro war, corporatist, NAFTA

promoting, Wall Street/bank loving fraud.

But - whatever floats your boat.

[Starry Messenger]

198. Or an idiot Trump serf. Your choice.

[geek tragedy]

161. Sure, the immature Naderites feel that way.

Most of us don't.

[flamingdem]

191. +1 I'm upset with this, didn't think Bernie would lead youth up a garden path

quite so much.

I guess he believes it himself, against the background of what is likely.

[applegrove]

172. Not voting for Clinton if she wins the nomination is a GOP

meme. There are GOP trolls everywhere encouraging and insisting on this idea.

[PowerToThePeople]

185. I will vote for the fiture I wish to be a part of.

I will vote for no other.

Done supporting those who would inflict harm to myself and others.

[Joe the Revelator]

186. Some folks may be tired of continually being told to choose between the...

...least of two evils.

Maybe. Allegedly. It's classified.

[pinebox]

194. How many times am I going to have to say this?

Many Bernie supporters aren't voting for the Democratic party, they are voting for BERNIE.
I have said this over and over.
Many see the Democratic party as completely corrupt.
Hillary doesn't represent everybody and she is seen as untrustworthy and is seen as part of the very problem that Bernie is trying to fix.
Integrity.

[Live and Learn]

200. And there is that IWR vote!! nt

[olddots]

210. If I feel the primary is stolen from Bernie by the Hillary machine

how could I vote for her ? So far the machine looks like its cheating every chance it gets .

[Laughing Mirror]

214. Voted for Hillary in 2000 for senator

and quickly regretted it when I now saw what her game really truly was.

Of all the votes I've cast in the past 45 years, it is the only one I sincerely regret, deeply regret. Having made that mistake once, I learned from my error not to make that mistake again.

[bigtree]

216. oh, bullshit

..it's juvenile and betrays a self-centered view of politics which no one here should emulate.

'I didn't get my way, so I'm taking my ball and going home.' So much of the Sanders campaign has been an epic pout. This isn't a revolution, it's a flash mob.

[raouldukelives]

217. I run into them all the time.

Which isn't surprising seeing how few choose to vote at all. All they care about is money, and its hard to blame them, it is the worldview corporations and their enablers have been brainwashing them with for decades and it has been very successful.

They literally have no clue the damage they do, and they like it that way. As does Wall St. The less we know, the better for them.

[Bettie]

222. This is it

It’s a simple case of feeling disenfranchised, and refusing to participate in a corrupt system that screws you with one hand and expects your support with the other. It’s too insulting—too utterly demeaning—to play along.

Feeling disenfranchised: there is a lot of truth there. A lot of people do feel like the system is rigged against them and, it is. After a while, fighting against an opponent you will never beat just feels futile.

That leads to the next point: the system IS corrupt.

Those of us who are not One Percenters....well, remember P.T. Barnum? There's one born every minute. Credulous fools.

I'll vote, because I have kids.

Because I haven't totally lost hope for a better future for them.

But I do understand the frustration of being asked to support candidates who only "care" about anyone below the 1% when they want a vote.