Two Questions

[H2O Man]

There appear to be two general schools of thought here, in regard to if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party’s nominee for president in 2016. Let’s take a brief gander at each, and then consider a couple question!

The first holds that all registered Democrats should vote for each of our party’s candidates. This, they believe, is especially true in a presidential election.

The second one believes that each candidate for office is 100% responsible for earning virtually every vote. Thus, the candidate has to convince voters that he/she is the best option.

There are, of course, variations within all groups of people. While this includes both of the above, there is still a wide gap separating these two groups.

Now, for two simple questions. Which group tends to represent your thinking? And how does this impact the manner in which you view the current Democratic Party contest?

Thank you for your consideration.

Peace,
H2O Man

[Vinca]

1. There is a third school of thought.

Those who will vote for any Democrat to keep Republicans out of the White House. I always like to vote "for" someone, but if need be I'll cast a vote against Republicans.

[comradebillyboy]

2. I agree, I'll vote for the Democrat every time,

or against the republican, the result the same.

[Hortensis]

24. Exactly. H2O presents a phony, polarized choice.

Of course we will all vote our first preference, and then our second.

Given the extremely awful choices on the right, and choices already being made by primary/caucus voters, I feel sure that almost everyone will hold strong for the Democratic Party.

[H2O Man]

5. Group #1

[Vinca]

70. Not really. I would consider myself a vote against something, not for something.

[XRubicon]

13. 100% agree

[1StrongBlackMan]

61. +1 ...

my sentiments exactly ... even if that meant casting my vote for a Jim Webb.

[JoePhilly]

71. Exactly, if my preferred dem loses the primary ...

.... I still vote for the dem over the Republican alternative ... and have done so multiple times.

[question everything]

81. Well said. Thank you. Especially this year, when the Supreme Court is in the balance

To quote the Club for Growth: "You can win back the Senate in two (years) ; you can compete for the White House in four; but the court, you lose every issue for a generation.”

[senz]

3. Democrat used to mean something - until Al From/ Bill Clinton's DLC Third Way takeover.

I stand with old school FDR Democrats. I support Bernie Sanders.

[H2O Man]

6. Very good.

Thank you.

[comradebillyboy]

7. Yeah before that Democrats lost with

McGovern, Carter, Mondale and Dukakis. Bill Clinton made the Democratic Party competitive in presidential elections again. I'm sorry he wasn't pure enough for you.

[BillZBubb]

14. And since then we've lost most of the governorships, state houses, and the congress.

That's a GREAT tradeoff!

But wait, there's more: before that the Democratic party shunned republican policies and actually fought for meaningful change. Now we EMBRACE republican policies!

[comradebillyboy]

29. Most of those sad things happened after Obama

pushed through the ACA. Do you recall Democratic majorities in the Senate and house until the 2010 elections? Those majorities passed the ACA. That's 10 years after Clinton left office. Are you blaming that on Clinton too.

[Mnpaul]

59. Are you forgetting 1994?

The 1994 midterm elections saw the Republican Party gain a majority of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time since 1954. The 54 seat swing in the House ushered in an era of divided government that persisted for the remainder of the 1990s.

Bill Clinton's election to the presidency in 1992 masked an ongoing rightward shift in American politics. Clinton garnered just 43% of the popular vote and during his first two years in office struggled with conservative factions in both the Republican and Democratic parties. This atmosphere contributed to the narrow passage of the fiscal year 1994 budget, which despite being stripped of major stimulus and public investment programs garnered no Republican support and was opposed by a number of Democrats, as well as the administration's failed efforts to reform the American health care system. Adding to these difficulties was the slow recovery from the 1990-91 recession. Although U.S. GDP had begun to rise by the time Clinton was sworn in, unemployment remained high, and inequality continued to grow. Popular discontent with the state of the nation's economy fed into Republican attacks on the social and cultural aspects of American liberalism, the "culture war." When combined with large campaign contributions from businesses, this proved to be a potent electoral mix, and on November 8, 1994 the American electorate handed the Republican Party its greatest victory since 1980. Republicans picked up 54 seats in the House of Representatives and 8 seats in the Senate, while also taking control of a number of governorships and state legislatures. Meanwhile, a handful of prominent Democrats, including House Speaker Tom Foley of Washington and Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski of Illinois, suffered unexpected defeats.
http://vm136.lib.berkeley.edu/BANC/ROHO/projects/debt/1994midtermelection.html

And the Gingrich led Republican revolution was born.

I can believe people want to go there again. I guess it is like they say: people who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[snowy owl]

94. Also Gingrich's Contract for America was a brilliant slogan

as was Reagan's "Government is the problem" We are a propagandized country and until people start hearing from Sanders and others like him, we will continue to let media, extreme-right repubicans, and slogans tell us how to think. Also, gerrymandering reached an art and I don't know if we can ever turn that around. Bernie is the closest opportunity we've had to do that with his coattails.

Americans fall for slogans esp. if they connect simplistically and emotionally. Been a long time since any intellectual argument won the day.

[1StrongBlackMan]

63. And what does that have to do with voting for the Democratic Nominee ...

there are many factors that led to the down ticket losses.

[BillZBubb]

88. Because Third Way Democrats CANNOT excite voters to turn out in non-presidential elections.

There is no inspiration with republican lite or we're not as bad as they are policies.

A bad nominee, like Hillary, doesn't have coattails. And a Third Way president KILLS the party in mid term elections.

[1StrongBlackMan]

90. Okay. n/t

[senz]

15. NAFTA, GATT/WTO, 1996 Telecom Act, welfare reform, repeal of Glass-Steagall

precursors to the 2007 recession and all the suffering that followed.

Selling out to Big Money was not the way to go.

Carter was a victim of Reagan dirty tricks, Mondale and Dukakis were not inspiring.

Bernie Sanders does NOT sell out and IS inspiring. Put that in yer pipe and smoke it.

[geek tragedy]

8. yes, it meant losing national elections in landslides nt

[revbones]

26. You might want to revisit history.

When Democrats stood for principles, we controlled congress for 40 years. And then still held majorities more often than not.

[geek tragedy]

31. Democrats got bitten by racial realignment in the south.

the votes of white racists in the south began migrating from Democrats to Republicans in the 1950's and that has about run its course now, with white southerners being a formidable rightwing voting bloc.

Democrats are also disadvantaged because our base is concentrated in big cities, making it easy to gerrymander.

[revbones]

33. It would seem that you have an innate ability to misread or ignore facts.

The Dixiecrat switch was in 1948, Democrats still controlled congress afterwards.

Misrepresenting facts still won't justify your rationalization that selling out was necessary to win.

[geek tragedy]

34. realignment is a process, not an event. you should explore

the meaning of these concepts

[revbones]

38. Your willful ignorance is potentially blinding.

I'm letting you know that I'm putting you on ignore.

The juvenile and joyful ignorance is just far too much to bear. Enjoy whatever last word you feel you need to make to me, but know I won't be reading it.

[H2O Man]

40. Very good!

[XRubicon]

55. Very Good!

[radical noodle]

64. There was a big Dixiecrat switch when LBJ signed the Civil Rights legislation.

I believe you'll find that was when the Southern Strategy came about. It was mostly in the 50s and 60s.

[geek tragedy]

4. they're both true

Candidates have an obligation to earn every vote. That is their job.

At the same time, voters have a civic obligation to vote in a way that they believe will benefit their community and their country and their family.

And to recognize elections are about choices that always involve choosing an imperfect option.


And if a person decides that putting Donald Trump in charge of the military, appointing judges, enforcing the law, running our foreign policy, and overseeing our intelligence apparatus isn't something they care to actively oppose, they deserve every bit of scorn they will get.

And the vast majority of people here do not fall under Camp Nader.

[KMOD]

9. I believe it is up to the candidates to pursuade voters.

Hillary Clinton has a very thorough platform, and her plans to deal with a number of issues that are important to me has convinced me to give her my vote.

[H2O Man]

10. Very good.

Thanks!

[Hoyt]

11. I'm voting for the Democrat, even if former Republican Elizabeth Warren is nominated in 2024.

[H2O Man]

12. Okay.

[XRubicon]

25. So "ok" for type 1 people and "very good" for type 2?

Your shtick is weak.

[H2O Man]

28. See posts #9 & 10

[BillZBubb]

16. You're OK with former republican Hillary too then.

Isn't that special.

[Hoyt]

20. She left in 68, Warren stuck around until 1996. That ought to tell you something.

If they are a Democrat at the time, I'm voting for them if they are the nominee.

[1StrongBlackMan]

66. Corrected for accuracy ...

You're OK with former TEENAGE republican Hillary too then.

[BillZBubb]

89. Corrected for accuracy...

You're OK with 1988 reborn 1950's republican Hillary, through the DLC.

[1StrongBlackMan]

91. Yes ... I guess. n/t

[jeepers]

17. loyalty or self interest.

Self interest comes first, when that is realized loyalty follows.

option two,With a lifetime working for equality, Bernie has my vote and my loyalty.

[H2O Man]

21. Thank you!

[XRubicon]

32. It's not in your self interest to keep Trump out?

It's not loyalty in the general election, it's self interest.

[1StrongBlackMan]

67. Or, self-interest or selfish interests ...

[Maedhros]

18. Group #1 is responsible for the sad state of affairs in the Democratic Party.

By allowing Party affiliation to be the sole deciding factor in how their vote is cast, they have sent a loud and clear signal to Democratic candidates for office: "We don't expect you to work for us, so do whatever you want. As long as you have a 'D' next to your name, it's all good."

And then we wonder why our Presidential candidates are wallowing in corporate cash and supplicating themselves before AIPAC.

[H2O Man]

22. Thanks!

[sadoldgirl]

19. Actually I think that voting should be mandatory,

as a kind of proving that you are a citizen; but I
know that this is a minority view.

If I had lived during his time I would have voted
for the BullMoose party to help Teddy.

[H2O Man]

23. Thanks!

[Blue_In_AK]

27. In Alaska I have the luxury of being in Camp 2

particularly with regard to presidential elections. I can pretty much guarantee that if Hillary is the nominee, she won't take Alaska. Therefore, I could write in or vote third-party if I wanted to with little effect. With our 60+ % nondeclared and minor party electorate, I think Sen. Sanders would do much better here in November and I would definitely vote for him, of course.

I can't get enthusiastic about Hillary, no matter how I try.

As for Senator, these days I always vote for the Dem, although I admit to voting for Ted Stevens in the past because the Dems never ran anyone worth voting for. I've voted against Don Young for as long as I've lived in Alaska, 41 years.

[H2O Man]

30. Very good!

Thanks!

[MillennialDem]

35. I will not vote for Hillary. Her supporters piss me off too much.

[H2O Man]

36. Okay.

[JoePhilly]

72. Oh brother.

Talk about short sighted.

[orpupilofnature57]

37. Skewed Question but here goes, The person who is a 100% responsible for earning Every vote isn't

living on this planet . The Candidate who exemplifies the values of a party should naturally be the candidate for that party, If by unnatural means a candidate is presented as the only option, the party has been usurped by a faction of leaders within that party , there needs to be a revolution .

[H2O Man]

39. Thank you.

[Gregorian]

41. I feel strongly that a candidate prove their worth.

Up until now I haven't had the opportunity to even vote for one I feel is worthy of the job. And here's the part that's bugging me. If I've waited much of my life, and suddenly my ideal candidate is knocked out of the race, and the new candidate doesn't fit what I consider to be worthy, then I have to look at the competition. It looks like Trump. And his temper and short fingers are terrifying. Not to mention the orange/ginger. I can see Trump has issues. But I see that Clinton does too. In fact, if Trump is against the TPP, then it might be better than having Clinton. I can see through Trump. But it gets complicated. Pavlov would have a field day with republicans and the word Hillary. Trump might be impeached, or resisted to the point where we end up with nothing happening, which might be better than the TPP. I don't know. I'm just yakking without much thought. But that's where this leads, if I'm a Number 1.

[H2O Man]

42. Very good!

Thank you!

[JonLeibowitz]

43. I believe that an intelligent citizen can register

For parties in advance of primaries and deregister immediately to protest the unAmerican idea of political parties. This way I obviate the first question and put myself in the 2nd. Candidates at all level deserve our deliberative consideration, not a reflex vote.

[H2O Man]

46. Great answer.

Thanks!

[Armstead]

44. Number 2 -- No Contest

[H2O Man]

47. Thanks!

[farleftlib]

45. Every time I've voted "against" the R party

I've felt as though I did myself, my country and my party a disservice. The "D" in question was not so much an alternative to the "R" as a watered down version of it. Result: the Democratic party differs from the opposition now only as far as a few social issues, and those might be "on the table" if Hillary gets in.

Sanders is someone to vote "for" and now that I have the option to vote for someone who actually has a platform I can fully support without hesitation or compromise, I don't see why I should even consider doing anything else. IOW, supporting a letter after someone's name has been an exercise in futility. It's not even D vs. R anymore. Sanders has shown that it's the 99% against the 1%.

[H2O Man]

48. Very good!

Thanks!

[pat_k]

52. There is a difference.

If for nothing else but the Supreme Court. You cannot argue that Clinton would nominate the sort of right wingnuts that Trump/Cruz/Kasich would. The consequences of enabling such people to make it to SCOTUS would be felt for decades to come -- long past this election.

I'm working to get Bernie to the White House, but if that doesn't happen, I'll be working to prevent the horrific R alternative.

[pat_k]

49. Neither

I want to see Bernie in the White House, but if we cannot bring that about, I'll be supporting Clinton, not because I'm a Democrat who's "supposed to," but because there is a difference between Clinton and Trump/Cruz/Kaisich

1. I do not want to see more seats on the Supreme Court lost to the sort of people Trump/Cruz/Kasich would nominate. That is a consequence that will have incredibly damaging consequences for decades to come.

2. If those who are working to get Sanders to the White House continue to work to win back Congress and organize to advocate the sort of legislation Bernie supports, we may actually succeed in getting some decent legislation through. I want the person in the White House that is more likely to sign such legislation into law. That is not Trump/Cruz/Kasich. The fact is, Sanders' agenda is not happening without some incredible support from "out here," so whether it's Sanders or Clinton in the White House, we have our work cut out for us.

It's not about party affiliation or a candidate having to earn every vote by advocating the changes I want to see happen. It's about doing the best we can do for this broken nation. Right now, that's supporting Sanders. If Clinton wins the nomination, it means supporting her... and actively working to turn out the vote for her.

[H2O Man]

50. Very good!

Thank you.

[pdsimdars]

51. And this is relevant how???

It's just pushing straw around.
I would say as a way of trying to convince those you don't agree with to change their minds and agree with you.

But it isn't an ISSUE to decide who you want to be president.

That is why I'm guessing you support Hillary, because rather than talk about issues, you want to talk about people's personalities and how they make decisions.

[H2O Man]

54. Thanks!

[XRubicon]

57. More Dunning Krueger than straw IMHO

[Peace Patriot]

53. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!!!!

Bernie Sanders has changed--or maybe firmed up--my thinking about voting. In this current VERY CORRUPT political system, we have to pay much closer attention to WHO IS FUNDING the candidates.

I did think about this before, but Sanders has made me think about it harder. My conclusion: I am simply not going to vote for ANY candidate who accepts certain kinds of superpac, Corporate, billionaire money (i.e., money tied to polluters & killers of Mother Earth; tied to war, health, prison and other kinds of profiteers--that kind of evaluation). They accept bad money, they are INHERENTLY corrupt. And I will greatly favor those who run a Bernie's campaign of small donors only. I don't care what their party label is. 50+ year Democratic voter and activist here. I've had it!

HOWEVER, I do recognize that our political system may be too far gone for any type of principled voting. Its demise can be dated to 2002, start of the plague of electronic voting systems, spread all over the country, run on 'TRADE SECRET' code--code that the public is forbidden, by law, to review--and with half the states in the country doing NO AUDIT AT ALL (comparison of electronic results with ballots) and the other half doing a miserably inadequate audit. Further, this 'TRADE SECRET' code is owned and controlled by a handful of large private corporations, the biggest one, ES&S/Diebold, with close ties to far rightwing, 'christian' nutball billionaire Howard Ahmanson.

The very counting of our votes has been privatized. It is no longer in our hands.

I think that this is WHY we have a Congress with a 8% approval rating, and nutball RW governors and state legislatures all over the country, who are FURTHER rigging our election systems with vote suppression laws, gerrymandering and other dirty plays.

So who cares if I vote for clean candidates and against $$$ candidates? The clean candidates will never win. And the $$$ system is so pervasive that clean candidates will almost never be running for anything.

It will be great--it may be be nation-saving--if Bernie Sanders has created a feasible model for clean candidates to actually get elected. But if Sanders doesn't win this current nomination (iffy) and the GE (a certainty, if he gets the nomination, because he'll win so big that it can't be rigged--or can't be subtly rigged), it will be a long, long hard slog up the stinking corruption mountain that our system has become, before we see daylight, if we ever do.

Dark thoughts today in sunny California. Gentle rains the last few days. Now the sun is out, the birds of spring are chirping near my window and it's quite hard to remain gloomy. But I do try. Got to face the gloom before you can really appreciate the light.

Bad, bad situation we are in. Bernie Sanders is !!!

[H2O Man]

56. Outstanding answer.

Thank you!

[merrily]

58. Omitted from your OP is something that I believe to be very material, namely, we are posting on a

board with a specific set of terms of service. And only choosing Option 1 is consistent with those terms of service.

[H2O Man]

74. Thanks.

I don't think people are required to pledge to vote every Democratic candidate. But, of course, one can't campaign for a third party candidate, or against a Democrat in a general election.

In my region, there are frequently elections with no Democrat on the ballot. In those instances, I do vote third party. Nothing wrong with that.

[merrily]

92. You have the right to remain silent. However, if you post that you will not vote for the nominee

of the Democratic Party in November, you risk a hide or a ban, even if you say you are writing in another Democrat. So far, no one has been banned just for that AFAIK. However, there have been bannings for allegedly encouraging others to do the same. Once Skinner announces that primary leeway is at an end, you subject yourself to banning without the additional bit of encouraging others.

According to posts I've read, Hillary's DU supporters have been, for months, making lists of people who posted they will not vote for Hillary so that they can target them.

In my region, there are frequently elections with no Democrat on the ballot. In those instances, I do vote third party. Nothing wrong with that.

Of course, nothing is wrong with that. My post was not about what you do at the polls, but about about DU posts. My post was also specifically about your OP, which is about voting for Hillary Clinton, if she is the nominee, or someone else. There will be a Republican and a Democrat at the top of the ticket.

As for downticket, local, etc., as it gets closer to November, if I were to post about voting, say Green for state rep, it may or may not matter. However, if I wanted to be safe, I would specify in the post that no Democrat was running for the office.

In any event, I made my prior post for two reasons. One is that the TOS may skew the survey your OP sought. The other was to remind people that what they post anywhere on DU, including this of the risk.

[H2O Man]

93. Very good!

Thanks!

[tularetom]

60. After 50 years of voting the straight Democratic ticket, I will not be doing that anymore

Each candidate has to earn my vote. Many times in the past I have voted for the lesser of two evils. This was a mistake.

And yes this definitely affects how I'll vote in the Democratic primary. The general election? I'll decide that when the time comes.

[H2O Man]

75. Thank you!

[AtomicKitten]

62. School of thought #2: I will vote my conscience/the best candidate.

This election cycle has revealed a biased, corrupt DNC. As such, the party is not entitled to my vote just cuz. I will vote my conscience which will be who I consider the best candidate.

k/r

[H2O Man]

76. Very good!

I think that everyone should vote as their conscience dictates. And I've yet to hear any serious argument against doing so.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

65. I think that all voters should choose their own criteria in selecting who they will vote for.

Freedom for supporters of the government only, for members of one party only, no matter how big its membership may be is, no freedom at all. Freedom is always freedom for the man who thinks differently. Rosa Luxemburg

[H2O Man]

77. Very good! Thanks!

There are Democrats in Congress and various state offices that do not meet my broad, inclusive definition of what it means to actually be a Democrat.

[surrealAmerican]

68. I'm a bit closer to the second, but ...

... it would take very unusual circumstances for me to vote for any Republican.

[H2O Man]

78. Right.

I would never for for any republican in a presidential contest. That just isn't a possibility.

[ky_dem]

69. My vote in the presidential hasn't ever counted due to the E.C. system so . . .

I'm probably going to write in my preferred candidate if it comes down to that. Otherwise I vote straight ticket even though I would argue our candidates are mostly DINOs in KY (or, I worked for the Alison Lundergan-Grimes campaign but boy did I get tired of the 'she's not Obama' line we were supposed to sell)

[H2O Man]

79. Very good!

I live in NYS, and so on one hand, my vote isn't going to determine any state or federal election. But, a year-and-a-half ago, a local election was quite literally decided by one vote. As I was running the campaign of the winning candidate, I never hesitate to remind him that I am responsible -- times two -- for his victory.

The (sore) loser demanded two recounts. Came out the exact same, each time!

[JoePhilly]

73. You need to include the group who thinks ...

.... that if their candidate loses the dem primary, the country needs to be allowed to crash and burn under GOP control because only that will cause the people to rise up and join the revolution.

[H2O Man]

80. No, I don't.

[840high]

82. 2nd. Earn my

vote. I'll vote for who I believe will be best for the country. Right now it's Bernie.

[H2O Man]

83. Thanks!

[peace13]

84. I will vote for the person whose philosophy most lines up with my own.

Prefer a Dem as that is what I have always voted but yes, I need to feel that the candidate is honest and consistent.

[H2O Man]

85. Very good!

Thank you.

[longship]

86. Then there's the inevitable crowning school, built on complete hubris.

The alternative is, let the public vote.

And Markos? Eat shit!

And I agree with you H2O Man. Sadly, few here take it to heart.

So I oppose such things.

My best to you.

[Autumn]

87. Up until 2010 I was in the first group, I gradually moved to the second group.

For myself, this current contest has been eye opening to me. If Hillary wins it will be very revealing to me to see where she moves on her positions. I really don't know how it will impact my vote but I know it will.

[snowy owl]

95. If enough people moved to 2nd group, democratic party would have to change

I'm in second group and I will vote Green if Hillary is candidate. I've always done and will continue to do. If republicans continue to fool so many people and democrats continue to vote for repubican-lite, then American will be what it will be. I refuse to keep anybody in power that doesn't deserve to be there including right-leaning democrats.