If Democrats vote for Democrats down ballot, who cares about their presidential vote in 45 states?

[Attorney in Texas]

I have never failed to vote for the Democratic presidential nominee (even though I have been a Ralph Nader fan since I was in high school and Gore's choice of Lieberman was as close to a deal-breaker as I could imagine).

If we nominate Hillary, I'll likely vote for her (while I throw up in my mouth a little), but why should it matter?

The truth is, my presidential vote in Texas will not matter because Texas is not a battleground state.

No matter who we nominate (so long as the FBI does not derail our nominee), the Democratic presidential nominee win California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine, Oregon, Washington, Michigan, New Mexico, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, and Iowa.

No matter who the Republicans nominate (so long as there is not such a landslide that makes any quibbling about any individual vote immaterial), they are going to win North Carolina, Montana, Georgia, Missouri, Arizona, Indiana, South Carolina, Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

If Democrats pinch their noses in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Nevada, Ohio, and Florida, then why shouldn't the rest of us Democrats simply focus on down-ballot Democratic candidates and vote our conscience at the top of the ticket?

Even if you expand the battleground to include North Carolina, Colorado, Wisconsin, and Iowa, that's still 41 states plus DC where our presidential vote won't change the outcome.

If I were to break with my life-long voting record and vote as a "down-ballot Democrat," what is the harm in that so long as I don't advocate similar clean-conscience voting in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Nevada, Ohio, and Florida?

[apcalc]

1. To answer your question....

I care.
There is no guarantee down ballot Democrats would win.

[Press Virginia]

2. There's no guarantee that HRC will win

taking back the house and senate would be better than abandoning what I believe so HRC can have her dream job

[Attorney in Texas]

4. I'll definitely vote for, campaign for, and contribute to down-ballot Democrats in Texas and beyond.

I decided a few months ago that I can no longer support the DNC, but I have not stopped supporting Democrats (I have just directed that financial support to individual candidates).

If I lived in a battleground state, I'd also support our nominee no matter who we nominate. Yet I feel conflicted about Hillary (I'd as soon vote for George Pataki or a similar milquetoast Republican if my choice was Pataki vs. Cruz or Trump, and -- if it came to that -- I WOULD vote for Pataki over Cruz or Trump if my nose-pinching vote for Pataki would make a difference).

I'm just trying to think why I should subject myself to such nose-pinching when my presidential vote in Texas isn't going to make a difference anyway. You don't have to persuade me that nose-pinching is required in Ohio and Florida, etc. I'm just not sure it should be required in deep red and deep blue states.

[1StrongBlackMan]

3. There is a chance that Texas goes blue with a trump candidacy ...

but I find it interesting that you reject that out of hand; yet, cling to the possibility of a Bernie win.

I find this/these subtle "don't vote for HRC in the G/E" posts (I've seen several over the last couple of days) distasteful.

[tonyt53]

6. Not a chance in hell.

But maybe in 2024.

[bettyellen]

21. Good point- I feel like everyone is underestimating women voters- who have much to lose with any

GOP potus, but have a distinct distaste for Donald. I do think we would have an unprecedented amount of women crossing over.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

27. Yet on the L.A. news last night they interviwed a woman leaving the Trump rally

who said she was leaning toward Trump because he sounded "so certain about what he believed."

I had heard the same thing about Bush when he ran against Kerry. Kerry's thoughtfulness was viewed as "weak" while Bush was seen as strong because of his lack of self doubt (arrogance), even by those who objected to his policies.

I'm beginning to understand how Adolf got his start.

[bettyellen]

28. well anecdotal stuff from local news is one thing- Donalds dismal polling with all women is another.

[WhiteTara]

34. Especially if she chooses Castro as her running mate. nt

[reformist2]

5. I agree - in states where it doesn't matter, Dems should feel free to vote however they want.

If I live in a state where Hillary is beating Trump 60%-40%, why should I vote for the lesser of two evils?

[Vote2016]

9. I'm voting Sanders in the primary and the general election. We won't get change unless we vote for i

[Kittycat]

30. Apparently the City of Chicago/Cook Cty votes for all of IL

So my vote won't matter. Just like they voted Rahm back in (if anyone can keep a straight face and say they believe that). So I too will do as I choose with my top of the ticket. Down ballot, I will do everything I can to get the most progressive candidates in office, then drink heavily and maybe watch a Movie election night.

[tonyt53]

7. Better pass that along to other Bernie supporters then

The voting results in WI indicate that those that voted for Bernie did not bother to vote for the down ticket Democrat candidates. You can bet that they also did not in other states. Bernie has thrown support behind three people running for house seats and none in the Senate. He and his campaign criticized fundraisers held for Democrats - take the one held by George Clooney for example. None of the money went to HRC, it all went to other Democrat candidates and primarily the Senate candidates.

[Vote2016]

8. Sanders supporters aren't all Democrats. The majority who are do generally vote for down ballot Dems

[DLCWIdem]

18. Wisconsin Senate

It was not only money for support to down ballot races. Both candidates were asked to just say something about Russ Feingold in a dinner the weekend beefore the primary in Wisconsin. Only Clinton did. Feingold is one of the semators which give democrats an excellent chance to take back the senate, but its going to be hard fought because of Walker's effort to suppress our votes. Feingold, in case you are unaware, is attempting to regain his seat after losing it to Tea partier Johnson. Feingold has a excellent liberal voting record, in fact, because of his voting against the Iraq war and against the Patriot Act (he was against it before Sanders) it was said that he could've made a run against Hilliary in 2008. He also worked on campaign finance reform with McCain. These would have been great talking points for Sanders to bring up. Up until that point I had been sitting on the fence, I usually vote early but had not made up my mind yet. But sanders inaction caused me to take a look. If sanders had been serious about implementing his agenda he would have been trying to win the senate back. Why was he trying to go it alone. It was at that point that I decided how to vote. (That and a few other things decided me. This was the week when sanders started floating the idea of turning super delegates, even if it meant overturning popular vote disenfranchising voters. Especially, after they had spent months beating thier breasts about how "undemocratic" superdelegates were. I just did not like the hypocrisy.

[Hortensis]

10. Sounds doable where doable, but note that

voting patterns are strongly analyzed and depended on by both political experts and not-so-expert political mouths. Lower vote counts for any candidate are interpreted as weaker support for their party's ideology.

Why do these people who "ignore us" and "don't represent us" nevertheless spend many kings' fortunes chasing our vote at elections and even more chasing our support all the rest of the time? Because in a democratic republic, political power overwhelmingly comes from the will of the people.

[Ferd Berfel]

11. Initially great arguments for KILLING the obsolete Electoral College

and go to direct voting - as if we were a democracy!

Then every vote in every state counts as 1`vote.
But I doubt the Elite of either party would like that. Too hard to control the outcome.

[Skwmom]

12. Once Trump beats the Crooked Hillary Drum and backs it up with stuff, a lot of voters will consider

the whole damn party corrupt and will stay home.

[Vote2016]

13. If that happens, the election still won't turn on the votes of Sanders supporters in red states.

[Skwmom]

14. I don't think it will just be Bernie's supporters staying home.

Last edited Sat Apr 30, 2016, 02:06 PM - Edit history (1)

[Vote2016]

15. I agree, but blaming Sanders supporters for not drinking the Kool-aid is a scapegoat fail

[procon]

16. If you think you're vote doesn't matter, think again.

Given all the opportunities for voter suppression, tampering with ballots, and manipulating the vote count, that should be incentive enough to vote in a red state. And then there is the whole possibility of a computer malfunction, by chance or design, whole precincts could be altered.

Vote ratios matter. Even if you live in a state that "always" votes Republican the ratio by which the candidates win or lose matters. By voting, you are influencing the tactical and financial planning for future party efforts in your state to get more Democratic voters and work harder to shift from a purple state to solid blue. More importantly, if our Democratic nominee wins by a large margin and sweeps the opposition she gains enormous power and clout to push through Democratic reforms and policies over a weakened GOP. In a tight election, every vote counts, remember the 2000 debacle in Florida where just 537 voters changed the course of history.

If you're really that emotionally connected to a certain politician, keep in mind that you aren't actually voting for a person to be the President, but for your state's Electoral College Electors. State legislatures nominate electors from state party lists, but its a winner-take-all system, where all electors go with the candidate who wins the popular vote... usually. Here's the biggie, since there is no Constitutional or Federal law that compel electors, a candidate could lose the popular vote and still win the electoral college vote, or vice versa. A lower or higher vote count might encourage electors to switch sides, and if you think is can't happen, think again. It has actually happened 156 times where the electors voted against the people's choice.

[Kittycat]

31. We have that in blue states

Take your blinders off and evaluate the primary season we're in now. The problems we've seen have not been in red states only.

[procon]

33. Sorry, but your post is too ambiguous for me to decipher.

The OP is talking about not casting his presidential vote in Texas, not a primary. Did you want to change the discussion?

[PowerToThePeople]

17. In all 50 states, their vote is theirs alone.

That is all.

No one else owns their vote.

[Kalidurga]

19. For me it strikes me as foolish to vote for someone who is under FBI review

Now it probably won't drag on into November but what if it does? As far as I am concerned Hill has too much baggage and she could be more destructive to the Democratic party than Trump. I don't live in a swing state either though so my decision is easy peasy.

[JSup]

20. Vote how you like

While I would prefer (wouldn't everyone?) everyone vote the way I do, it's not going to happen.

All I ask is that if you can't support Hillary, please vote downticket. And if you can't do that I don't know why you're actually here (which does NOT mean that you shouldn't be here).

[bigwillq]

22. My vote for prez in CT matters little

The DEM nominee will win in my state.

I plan on voting for the DEMs in the downticket races.

[dsc]

23. NC is in play

we won it in 08, and we are working our asses off to win it this time. Our GOP legislature has run our state into the ground, or governor is a lying scumbag. We have become more democratic, not less, since 2008.

[DLCWIdem]

24. N. Carolina

SABATA who analyses electoral college voting patterns says that N Carolina has already turned blue.

[Vote2016]

25. We'll see. I bet Trump does better than expected.

[Agnosticsherbet]

26. Because the President Appoints Supreme Court Justices and justices to lower courts.

The President can veto stupid bills, like a bill to revoke the ACA or make massive changes to Social Security, Medicare, funding bills, etc.

The President assigns people to run the Justice department. Remember Bush's appointments. The Justice department has the authority to investigate civil rights cases and voting irregularities. What kind of job do you think Trump will do.

Your choice matters, and you should vote to elect a governemnt that work for you instead of saying screw it.

[Fumesucker]

32. The establishment of neither party wants an overhwelming victory, it carries too much responsibility

Both parties would rather be able to use the other party as a convenient scapegoat for not getting what they said they were going to do done, they can't do that when they have a really strong advantage or at least they can't do it nearly as easily.

The last time the Dems had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate they were like someone handling a hot potato, they couldn't wait to get rid of it and back to the status quo of Republicans stonewalling on almost everything.

Republicans have voted against Obamacare roughly a brazillon times and never got anything accomplished because of those Wascawwy Democwats...