A plea for reason: Regardless of your favored candidate, vote Democratic this fall!

[Aristus]

That is all.

[Laf.La.Dem.]

1. Agree - 100%

[peacebird]

2. Let's try waiting til after the convention, please?

[Hortensis]

25. Or at least closer to. We're seeing a lot of these pleas,

very nice and all that, but premature. For some politics is an extremely emotional team sport, and right now we have basically 2 teams on the field. This is not going to change until one nominee is clear and after a calming down period, so we might as well accept that this will have to finish playing out before moving to unify.

Besides, in the end by far most of us will vote for the nominee, only a handful of die-hards going their own way. We know that already.

[auntpurl]

3. Of course. Always. nt

[liberal_at_heart]

4. not signing any loyalty pledges.

[revbones]

5. Yes, because principles apparently shouldn't matter.

Do people that say things like this, realize what you're asking? I realize that some feel avoiding a Republican or Trump is their number one priority, but to just ignore the fact that you are asking some people to overrule their principles is a bit surprising.

[Aristus]

7. Voting on 'principle' or whatever passes for it, gave us President Bush in 2000.

Just saying...

[revbones]

8. So you are saying that those with principles should just suck it up because many don't?

[Aristus]

13. What I'm saying is, President Trump won't give a hoot in Hell for anyone's principles.

I for one don't want another 'Lost Decade', i.e. 2000-2009.

[liberal_at_heart]

16. lost decade? The middle class had been in decline since Reagan. Try lost 3 decades and that is

under both Republican and Democratic presidents.

[Aristus]

18. Under President Gore, we would have had eight more years to level the playing field.

Simple as that...

[liberal_at_heart]

20. Gore was in favor of budget cuts to balance the budget, so no Gore would not have

helped to level the playing field.

[jeff47]

22. Nope. The playing field was not being "leveled" by the end of the Clinton administration.

We were already losing the gains made in the dot-com boom.

[hamsterjill]

24. +1000

Well said!

[liberal_at_heart]

9. Try that argument on Independents. Doesn't work. Maybe you can coerce and bully some

Democratic voters with that but it does not work on Independents.

[TCJ70]

10. This is a point that Hillary folks are really missing...

...Doesn't matter if 100% of the base shows up. Without Independents, we're sunk...

[marions ghost]

12. THANK YOU

Some people cannot see the TRUTH--Independents WILL decide.

(Too mesmerized by the Trumpasaurus?...)

[azurnoir]

27. SCOTUS gave us Bush in 2000 it would be more accurate to say Perot gave us Clinton 1992

However Bernie's not running as 3rd party candidate, something that some here find so very frustrating as illustrated by the "not one of us" type posts that still persist

That said I think you not quite get what drives Bernie's supporters that becomes obvious by the dismissiveness of this statement

" Voting on 'principle' or whatever passes for it"

So I'll help you here what we will be left with a choice between 2 candidates who are basing their respective campaigns on racial divides, both of whom are being helped by a dose of the ethnic/religious bigotry that still exists in this country

Moreover for Bernie supporters the real issue is economic and the ruling class in this country - the robber barons if you will, so if Bernie does not win the nomination we will be left with the choice of which robber do we vote for the one with a D after their name or an R -here's the problem we've been falling in line and voting for the D for over 30 years now, and yes we get some progress on a few hot button social issues when enough noise and money goes into it, and opinion polls show it's become politically safer for them to mouth they are for it, than it is to continue to mouth against, economically and class wise we get zip nothing nada and the class divide only deepens-rinse lather repeat or a bigot who is running on a repulsive platform based on nationalism of the worst sort, so what to do, either way we lose in the long run.

and while i'm here I'll add this we keep hearing about the Berniebro's the angry young whitemen who support Bernie because their privilege is being challenged- Bernie MNN win should put that to rest and what should worry is that there aa candidate drawing angry young whitemen who feel they have no privilege and that is Donald Trump

[gcomeau]

84. While I am of the same mind...

...and fully intend to advocate for whoever the nominee may be in the general, I am also capable of recognizing that the decisions being made by the party are making that advocacy increasingly difficult to succeed.

Eventually a breaking point is going to be reached where enough people get pissed off at the establishment screwing over progressive principles every election cycle that they are going to decide that whatever pain a Democratic slaughter at the polls may cause in the short term will be worth it to discipline the party and get it back on the left side of center for future elections. And the Clinton campaign and its supporters are accelerating the coming of that day with practically every action they take against Sanders and his policy push.

Will it happen this election? Hopefully not. But with every passing day I'm becoming be less and less surprised at the prospect it could.

[awake]

6. After the BS that Bill Clinton pulled in Mass. I for one will never vote for a Clinton again

Hillary is now fund raising with the NRAs lobbyist, she is clearly a Republican in Democrats clothing and she will never get my vote!

[CentralMass]

30. +1

[Svafa]

87. Yep. I don't vote for Republicans, even ones who pretend to be Democrats. nt

[PonyUp]

11. I'll vote for the real Democrat running. n/t

[BernieforPres2016]

14. How stupid do people have to be

to keep posting these loyalty oath threads?

[Aristus]

15. I didn't say anything about signing a loyalty oath.

Just pulling a lever; or punching a chad.

[restorefreedom]

17. todays loyalty oath brought to you by....nt

[salinsky]

19. Boy, you said it ...

... I'm new here, and I've been astonished at the pettiness and myopic outlook of the Bernie Sanders fans. I love Bernie, and make no mistake, Hillary is NOT my first, second, or third choice. But, this "Bernie or bust" nonsense is sheer insanity. Look at the dumpster fire that is the GOP primary. A Donald Trump presidency would be disastrous, and the truth is, he's probably the least dangerous of the bunch. Look at the stakes in regards to the SCOTUS alone. Electing a Democratic president is imperative.

[jeff47]

23. For my entire adult life, the Democratic party has been blackmailing me

with arguments just like yours. I'm rather tired of it.

Attempts to get the party to stop shitting on the base and using blackmail keep failing, because the leadership actively fights the base. You're probably familiar with how the leadership fucked over Lamont in favor of Lieberman. You may also be familiar with how the leadership fucked over the base to help Blanche Lincoln lose. Or DWS's history of supporting Republicans over Democrats in Florida.

The same thing happens at the local level. The county party took away a leadership "seat" rather than risk me winning it. I was the wrong kind of Democrat.

I'm out of options to get the party to pay attention. What, exactly, do you propose I do get them to stop this reprehensible behavior?

[salinsky]

42. I'm more than aware of the corrupt machinations of the Democratic party ...

... but, I think the prescient history you need most remember is Ralph Nader's effect on the 2000 Presidential Election which resulted in the most catastrophic foreign policy decision in U.S. history.

I propose that you campaign, and donate, and advocate like hell for the candidate of your choice.

And, then I propose that you get behind the Democratic candidate, as I will whoever that may be, because the consequences of the alternative are too dire.

[jeff47]

62. So you propose continued failure.

Fact is the people screwing up the party and ignoring massive problems like climate change and inequality are relying on the blackmail you support.

We have dithered for far too long while massive crises continue to mount. Our incrementalist bullshit has guaranteed that Miami will no longer exist in 40 years. Our incrementalist "Republican lite" stance has not only kept the utterly insane Republican party alive, it has handed them control of the majority of our state governments.

This is not acceptable.

I am down to one legal method of getting the party to pay attention: refuse to go along with the blackmail.

[salinsky]

86. Actually, what i propose is ...

... that you don't cutoff your nose to spite your face, and that incrementalism is preferable to going backward blindly and at a high rate of speed.

Look, I want my pony too, but I think you're losing sight of two things here ...

1. I will be thrilled should Bernie get the nomination and will work tirelessly and donate selflessly to see that he get's elected. But, I also recognize the danger and will do everything in my power to prevent the reactionary reprobates of the GOP from obtaining the power to choose the next two or three SCOTUS justices.

and

2. You need to come to terms with the fact that we have an alarmingly high percentage of the electorate that is composed of mouth-breathing ignoramuses, who are not only anti-intellectual, but wear their ignorance as a badge of courage.

You may be being blackmailed, but you've misidentified who's holding the gun.

[jeff47]

88. No, incrementalism is not preferable.

We no longer have time for incrementalism. What used to be problems are now crises. They can not be tackled via incrementalism, because they will become disasters before incrementalism can fix them.

If we submit to the blackmail yet again, we will continue to get incrementalism for a very long time. And it will utterly fail to address the problems we actually face. But it lets people pretend they are being serious.

2. You need to come to terms with the fact that we have an alarmingly high percentage of the electorate that is composed of mouth-breathing ignoramuses, who are not only anti-intellectual, but wear their ignorance as a badge of courage.

And you need to come to terms with the fact that 2/3rds of the electorate do not bother to be involved in politics, because incrementalism has utterly failed and we give them no other choice.

If your plan actually worked, we would not have lost 900 seats. We would not have lost the vast majority of governorships. Congress would not be in Republican hands. Trump would not be in danger of actually winning in November.

Incrementalism has failed for 35 years. You are demanding we continue to support it despite this horrific track record. We should want another 35 years of failure? We should wait until our coastal cities look like New Orleans during Katrina? We should wait until the entire middle class disappears?

No. You had your chance, but your time is now up.

[salinsky]

100. You allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good ...

... progress in America has always come incrementally, and in our history we've more often faced crisis than not.

Your outlook is immature.

[Shadowflash]

101. ''Look, I want my pony too''

Anything you write after that condescending line doesn't get read.

You have just invalidated any argument you may have had.

THIS condescending bullshit is why people are getting tired of HRC supporters and people demanding lockstep loyalty oaths.

[auntpurl]

66. Welcome to DU. You seem level-headed.

Sincerely, good luck with that. Try to remember primaries are the silly season. Things are not usually so vitriolic here.

I strive to never post anything uncivil. I am heartened to say I am often able to engage in constructive discussion with supporters of the other candidate. Not always, though.

[TM99]

107. Bullshit.

I am so sick of this revisionistic history.

Ralph Nader correctly stated that 10 years of New Dems and 10 years of the Reagan revolution had resulted in the two parties become alike in their corporatist support of neoliberal economic policies which were already being seen as huge negatives for our country. Almost 20 years later, this is even more apparent.

200,000 Democrats voted for Bush in FL. Jeb and Harris stole the election. And SCOTUS finished it off. Gore refused to fight. He also ran a bland campaign with Liberman as his shitty VP choice. The neocons were already pushing Clinton in 1996 to invade the ME. That bad foreign policy decision is on all of those who supported Bush II's lies around Iraq & 9/11. One of those cheerleaders was Hillary Clinton. She has now been endorsed by Kagan, a co-founder of PNAC, the neocon think-tank behind this War on Terrah foreign policy for the last 25 years.

This is not the Green's fault. This is not Nader's fault. This is not the fault of those on the left who are not registered Democrats who saw through these lies a hell of lot sooner than Dems ever did and voted for someone other than Gore or Bush. Some times I chuckle at those here who support Sanders and now realize the damage done but supported New Dems like Clinton, Gore, and Obama until now. Some of us were already well aware of the lies, the games, and the disastrous effects neoliberalism was and still is having on all Americans. I am just thankful that they are catching up.

[hamsterjill]

28. Thank you! And welcome to DU.

n/t

[bigwillq]

21. I will be voting D for every contest, except maybe 1.

Did I pass your test?

[Duckhunter935]

79. same here

Might do a write in

[Waiting For Everyman]

26. If President Trump isn't wanted, work harder for Bernie.

That's the only way this ends well.

[hamsterjill]

29. But if Bernie isn't on the ballot at the end of the day, what then?

If someone doesn't vote for the Democratic nominee, that only helps the Republicans.

If someone votes for the Republican nominee, that definitely helps the Republicans.

We are DEMOCRATIC Underground. We are not supposed to be helping the Republicans win.

[liberal_at_heart]

31. If Hillary wins she and other Democrats will continue to cave to cuts to social services.

I have disabled friends who lost their SSI because of the budget deal that the Democrats agreed to. If it comes down to Hillary vs. Trump it will be a disaster for the country no matter who wins.

[hamsterjill]

37. But then it will be necessary that you choose the lesser of two evils, won't it?

That's my point. To vote or not to vote - either way, it will help Trump move into the White House.

That's not going to help anyone who has Democratic values.

[liberal_at_heart]

39. I don't consider Hillary the lesser of two evils. When you take us to war, spend

trillions of dollars on war, and then cut SSI from children with cancer and intellectual disabilities that is not Democratic values. I'll say it again. Either Hillary or Trump would be a disaster for this country.

[hamsterjill]

43. Yes, but you will be making a decision one way or another.

You will either vote for Hillary or you will help Trump.

"Not to make a decision" IS making a decision in this instance.

[liberal_at_heart]

45. I don't care what you consider it.

[hamsterjill]

48. Thank you.

For being honest. It says a lot.

I care. That's why I'm involved. I'm a Hillary supporter who expects to vote for her in the general election. But, if the ballot has Bernie's name as the nominee, then I'm going to cast my vote for Bernie.

THAT is what caring about this country is all about.

[liberal_at_heart]

54. Good bye. You are going on my ignore list.

[hamsterjill]

58. That's fine. That is your loss.

And THAT is something that *I* don't care about!

[marions ghost]

47. After what I've seen, the country deserves Trumpasaurus

Steeling myself for these messages of "wisdom"

...I think we ALL know we (the unruly Liberal children) must "come to Jesus" --we will be told endlessly that we must vote for Billary to save "democratic values" again.

Don't worry, she'll get the puke vote, if she's the nominee. It may not be enough though. Many will abstain.

[lastlib]

112. Do you prefer President Trump or President Cruz to President With-A-D-After

his/her name?

If you think it doesn't matter, then you might be one of those poorly-educated that Trumpolini says he loves.

[CentralMass]

32. That includes not electing politicians that help them pass their agenda.

[liberal_at_heart]

34. exactly. Thank you.

[hamsterjill]

38. Still, if it comes down to Hillary and Trump.

You either pick Hillary, or you help Trump. There's no other way around it.

[CentralMass]

63. We had the Presidency and (albeit a thin one) majority in Congress and we capitulated .

I'd argue that our cooperative democratic Congress got more of the GOP's agenda passed then if Romney had won and the Democrats battled him.

The country is still going to hell. It seems like we are regressing when it comes to racial matters.
We have the highest poverty rate since the civil rights era.
Corporate profits are at a record high. Workers wages haven't been this low as a share of the GDP since 1929.
Our national debt suit's at $19 trillion dollars. 104% of our GDP and it got there through greed, corruption and bad governing by both sides. We have destabilized and armed most of the mideast and paid a tremendous toll for it and will continue to pay for decades.


The status quo is unacceptable. These leaders do not represent the vast majority of us. Voting for them will give us :what we deserve".

No more.

[hamsterjill]

68. But the ballot has only two names on it.

The choice is to vote for the Democratic nominee for president or not vote for the Democratic nominee and help the Republicans.

Very specific issue being discussed in this postings. Your post (portions of which I certain agree with) covers a much broader topic.

[Duckhunter935]

81. it also depends on the state

My vote will not matter in the general. It is very red.

[Waiting For Everyman]

61. Without Bernie, we're going to lose.

Doesn't matter how many Sanders people vote for HRC.

Here's why: (1) Repub turn out is way up, (2) ours is down. (3) It will go down more if HRC is the candidate if only because young and new voters and Independents will not be motivated like they would've been for Bernie. (4) Add to that, the DNC has not pushed registering new voters because they favor Sanders. (5) Plus, the other party usually wins after a President has two terms in office.

We will lose if HRC is our candidate. It isn't a sure win with Bernie either, but at least with him we have a good chance.

The future rests with Sanders supporters who are getting nothing but flack from: the DNC, the media, and other Dems.

All this, just because HRC wants to be the first woman President. What an ego!

HRC is "helping Republicans win". If she's the nominee, nothing anybody can do is going to stop that.

[hamsterjill]

69. Still, again, the topic of discussion in these postings is beyond this.

IF the ballot has the names of Clinton and Trump - you have a choice to either vote for the Democratic candidate, vote for the Republican candidate, or not vote. Those will be the only options in this specific scenario.

This is not about getting Bernie the nomination. This is after that fact - IF Clinton is the ultimate nominee.

If you vote for Clinton, you will help a Democrat get into the White House. If you either vote for a Republican, or you don't vote at all for the presidential nominee, you will be helping the Republicans.

YES, Bernie Sanders supporters should do all in their power to get him nominated. Clinton supporters should be doing the same. But the subject of my post is beyond that chronologically, with the expected scenario that it will be Clinton versus Trump/Rubio/Cruz. At that point, voters have only two choices.

[Waiting For Everyman]

71. No, the choice is now.

You want to look beyond the Primary, and I'm saying look beyond the GE... it will be President Trump. Other arguments are like arguing over "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" (as the saying goes). Moot.

The only use I can see in that is to pre-allocate blame for a known, predicatable and avoidable calamity. Those voting for Hillary are electing President Trump. Does that matter or just pre-allocating the blame?

And btw, Sanders supporters will be in no way responsible for that. You don't put up an unelectable candidate and then say "you didn't vote enough". By that logic anybody could be elected which is silly.

[hamsterjill]

76. My intent is not to place blame.

Yes, this series of posts have been about the general election.

I don't agree with you in your assessment of Hillary. I think she will be the nominee, and I certainly believe she is absolutely electable. So, we will have to agree to disagree on that issue.

But I can say emphatically that if Bernie is the nominee, that I'll vote for him because I believe that it will be better to have a Democrat in the White House than to have a Republican.

But, by your logic, if it's not Sanders, then you don't care if it is a Republican.

[Waiting For Everyman]

104. If not Sanders, it will be a Republican.

Of course I care. That won't change it one bit.

You don't call the Fire Department after the house has burned down.

This election reminds me of 1968, when the Dems should've backed an anti-war candidate but instead went with the Establishment sure-thing, LBJ's VP Hubert Humphrey. Lots of people voted for Tricky Dicky because he promised to end the war, while Humphrey was more "practical" and refused to. Of course Nixon won and he didn't end it, he never intended to. This won't end well either.

"Peace candidate" Nixon's 1968 campaign ad "I pledge to you we shall have an honorable end to the war in Viet Nam". It went on for 7 more years...

Instead of nominating a real peace candidate, the Dem convention nominated Humphrey to continue justifying the war, becoming the "war party" even though the peace movement was almost entirely Dems; it also defeated the anti-war plank of the convention platform.

A documentary in 1984 looking back to 1968: "The Establishment kept its power (in nominating Humphrey) and lost the election"...

Lots of those kids couldn't vote because although they could be drafted at 18, the voting age was 21 then, so the Dem Establishment thought it was safe to disregard them. When they could vote later, they were so turned off that they didn't vote for a long time, and when they did, many still hated the Dem party so much that they voted for Reagan. That is the mistake the Dem party is making all over again right now -- maybe not as drastically, but similarly.

This is what happens when the fake is allowed to replace the real, at the Establishment's bidding.

[Vattel]

33. I thought votes had to be earned?

[RiverLover]

35. What do we do if no one running honestly possesses Democratic Principles? /nt

[dana_b]

52. Go with whomever is closest

To your values? I don't know. I am hoping that won't happen.

[Le Taz Hot]

36. So glad to be "No Party Affiliation."

That way I don't have to sacrifice my integrity for blind loyalty. I sleep much easier that way.

[hamsterjill]

40. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night unless I did everything possible to keep a Republican

Out of the White House. I lived through the Bush years. I think you did, as well.

Don't you remember the fear? The anxiety? The angst? Don't you remember that moment of peace and calm when that helicopter left the pad at the White House taking Georgie and Laura away?

I do!

NOTHING is worth repeating that, and Trump, Cruz or Rubio would each/all be worse than Bush.

[Le Taz Hot]

44. I am doing everything I can to keep a Republican out of the White House.

That's why I'm a Bernie supporter. I saw through the veil of party politics long ago.

[hamsterjill]

46. But, once again, IF the printed ballot has Hillary as the Democratic nominee.

Then you either vote for Hillary or you help the Republicans. There are only two choices for this particular scenario.

[dana_b]

53. Edit

I misread your post. Sorry.

[hamsterjill]

59. No problem.

n/t

[Lizzie Poppet]

75. I disagree.

Then you either vote for Hillary or you help the Republicans. There are only two choices for this particular scenario.

I would argue that this is only the case in states that are actually in play (or are one of the two that proportionally award electors). My state is astronomically unlikely to give its sad little contingent of electors to anyone but the Democrat. I'll keep an eye on polling trends, just in case this somehow changes, but I have little doubt that I can vote for a genuine progressive (or not vote for prez at all) with a completely clear conscience. Until we throw out the anachronistic and anti-democratic Electoral College, that will remain something of a silver lining: I needn't hold my nose and vote for a "Republican lite."

[hamsterjill]

78. Interesting point.

There's always room for dishonesty in the Electoral College, and I happen to agree with you that in this day of computer/internet savvy, it is outdated and should be replaced by purely a popular vote.

But I would argue that if enough people did as you suggest, the Electoral College could be impacted to the degree to put a Republican in the White House.

But I like your level of thinking and understanding. Thank you.

[Lizzie Poppet]

85. That's a fair point, and as I mentioned, I'll be watching the polling carefully.

Oregon is highly unlikely to go "red," but there are a lot more conservative voters here than perhaps a lot of folk from elsewhere realize: there's a marked urban/rural political divide. Given the reported trends elsewhere of Democrats re-registering to vote (for Trump) in the Republican primaries and the virulent, turnout-motivating hatred for Hillary among the far right, I have to be aware of the trending before assuming I need not grudgingly vote against the Republican, just in case.

[hamsterjill]

94. Thank you.

This is the type of discussion and interchange that I enjoy (and miss) on DU.

Have yourself a good day!

[Lizzie Poppet]

111. Likewise!

It's been rough around here lately, and this kind of thing is a breath of fresh air.

[liberal_at_heart]

51. I live with anxiety every day because of both the Republicans and the Democrats.

My autistic son came home crying nearly every day during 6th grade because of Obama's education policy. And now I have to wonder if he will qualify for SSI when he turns 18. As I said before I have friends who just recently lost SSI. I have no idea if my son will get anything from SSI because the Democrats go along with whatever cuts to social services the Republicans want.

[hamsterjill]

57. I'm so sorry that you and your son are going through this.

I have friends and relatives that have been affected, too. Probably not to the degree that you describe, but I do understand your frustration.

You should do everything in your power to get your candidate nominated for the general election. That is not the issue here. You should do all in your power to get the representatives in the House and the Senate elected that you think will help your situation.

That is not the issue here in this specific thread. The issue is a choice between two ultimate names on a ballot.

The issue is that IF Bernie is NOT the nominee, then who do you think will come closer to helping your son? A Democrat or a Republican? There will only be two names on the ballot.

[Betty Karlson]

41. I'll happily support Democrats.

I just won't vote for Clinton. Ever. I don't trust her, and she obviously has never cared about me.

[inchhigh]

49. Voting for Bernie

whether he's the Nominee or not.

Simply will not Vote for Hillary. In my precinct last night we went for Bernie 90/10. Of the Sanders supporters still there after 7:00, not a single person will vote for Hillary she is the nominee.

I've voted for every Dem candidate since Carter. Simply can't tolerate another Big Business, War Hawk nominee.


The Party should have learned after Nader. The path to victory is to the Left.

[Fuddnik]

50. I'll vote for whqtever progressive earns my vote.

Hillary is no progressive.

[dana_b]

56. Me too n/t

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

55. Feel free to keep begging.

We'll see what happens come November.

[Beacool]

67. No one is begging.

Some are just hoping that those who have stated that they won't vote for Hillary use their brains and realize what a Trump presidency would do to this country.

[HassleCat]

60. More than president

Our problem is we focus too much on the presidency, and we are now the minority party at every level of government. So, yeah! Vote Democratic for national, state and local offices.

In regard to the presidential election, I will vote for Clinton (assuming she is the nominee) if she doesn't run too far and too hard to the right. Sanders has pushed, pulled, tugged and teased her about as far left as possible. She even called herself a progressive for about ten minutes at one point in the campaign. We know she will run right as soon as the nomination is secure, and I accept that, but there is a line that cannot be crossed. I can't tell you where that line is, or which issue would be the tipping point but it's there. Too much hawk squawk on foreign policy might do it, as an example. Waffling on police and justice reform would be another example.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

64. I'll vote for the most progressive candidate on the ballot.

I don't vote for labels..

[Beacool]

65. I keep repeating myself, but I would vote for a turnip if it had a "D" after it's name.

Anyone on the Democratic side would be 100% better than the bombastic narcissist that the Republicans are about to nominate. The only candidate that TPTB behind the scenes in the Republican party are despairing over because they recognize that the man is unfit for the presidency.

[Doctor_J]

70. I will be. Probably starting on line 2 though

A couple reasons that I have never voted (R) are that 1. I believe having them in office does great damage to the country, and 2. I don't want to associate myself with republican supporters. That will make it tough to vote for Mrs. Clinton for president.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

72. Here's the cool thing --

I live in a deeply blue State and I am too old to be blackmailed into voting against my own principles and interests anymore. If Clinton can't win my State without my vote she can't win PERIOD.

No more lesser of two evils for me -- I have been liberated.

[Lizzie Poppet]

73. I'll vote for the progressive candidate.

If there is a progressive candidate...

[Maedhros]

77. Not if the candidate doesn't represent my interests.[n/t]

[AzDar]

80. Exactly... Not gonna vote for Liars, Or Cheaters or Wholly-Bought Corporate Shills...

[olddots]

83. If something goes without saying so much

why is it said so much ?

[Katashi_itto]

89. Awesome, the daily Loyalty Post!

[KamaAina]

91. More like the daily Drumpf Will Set The Country On The Path To Ruin post.

[liberal_at_heart]

92. yes that does seem to be the meme of the day. Either vote for Hillary or you are to blame for

a Trump presidency.

[Katashi_itto]

93. Madman or Corrupt War Hawk...

[KamaAina]

95. Oh, come on. You're from Louisiana. Remember "Vote for the crook. It's important!"?

Crook Edwards vs. Drumpf endorser Dukkke for gov. Well, vote for the corrupt war hawk. It's important!

[Katashi_itto]

96. Not this time. I won't prop a corrupt system up anymore.

Let it burn.

[Katashi_itto]

97. As for my state. It's waking up to the fact it has no money and the people that enabled Jindal

are still sitting in office.

2.2 Billion in the hole.

LSU might close. Services are being cut by 50% or eliminated.

We will look like Greece next year.

[KamaAina]

98. I had heard that. I can't imagine what the people of the Gret Stet will do without LSU football.

That'd be the one thing that would cause riots in the streets down there!

[Katashi_itto]

99. Probably the only thing. After decades of corruption people are fatalistic

About getting anything really fixed.

[KamaAina]

103. Yeah you rite.

[Katashi_itto]

105. You should hear the local radio stations. Describing, that is still bury your head in the sand

in the capitol Baton Rouge.

[Dems to Win]

90. I'll vote for the candidate most likely to enact Universal Health Care

Since Trump has spoken positively of single payer, MediCare for All, it will be interesting if he is the Repub nominee.

I have been active in promoting single payer health care since 1992. I remember Hillary's refusal to even say the words 'single payer' in public while she was in charge of Clinton's health care reform task force. I heard her say it will 'Never, Ever Happen' in this campaign.

I know that Hillary is funded by bank, corporate, and insurance interests. Can she convince me she will stand up to them and truly work for universal health care? First she needs to convince me that she understands that a $5500 deductible health 'insurance' policy is no health care access at all for a minimum wage worker.

If our nominee is Bernie, it will be an easy choice. Sanders 2016!

[Katashi_itto]

102. LOLOLOLOL! No more blackmailing for me.

Let it burn.

[PonyUp]

106. Same. n/t

[ThePhilosopher04]

108. I'm voting for Bernie Sanders this fall. If he's the nominee, I'll gladly vote D.

If not, I will write his name in, and encourage other supporters to do the same. Hillary and Trump are not options.

[In_The_Wind]

109. Sounds reasonable to me!