I need to know why I must cast my vote for Clinton

[redixdoragon]

Being from California the primary approaches. I currently wish to vote for Bernie Sanders.
I look to the financial plight of those I know around me. I wish this situation to improve for them.

I must know why I should vote for her, and not Sanders, or why I must vote for her in the General Election, rather than protest by not voting.

I don't want to hear what Trump will do, I know he'd be horrid as a president.

I'm a gay man. I know that LGBT rights are important. I don't need that to be a qualifier for Clinton

I do not like guns, they scare me every time I see them. I do not need Clinton's gun control policites to be a qualifier for her.

I do not like war. It exists to cause death until someone surrenders their terriroty and resources and often their rights as a people.

I had a hispanic boyfriend, I know the troubles of discrimination he went through, I had to be there to ride with him through affluent parts of town so that police would leave him alone. I don't need to know Clinton's issues on racial equality as a qualifier.

I think this covers most of the wedge issues. The ones that help say wether you've got a D here or R there. Abortion, Death Penalty, there are others so drop those if you would.

It's economic issues. I want to know why, based on economic policy and platform, she should be the one I go to vote for in the California Primary or the General Election.

You all said it's time to unify the party. I'm ready to do a write in at this point and I know you all want me putting in support and voting Hillary don't you? So I need a good economic reason why. My folks are near losing their home. I live here paying 80% of my social security disability check so that we can have a roof and my EBT gets us food. I have to imagine others are in this situation, will she help us?

[bkkyosemite]

1. No. But Bernie will

[farleftlib]

2. You know what a vote for Hillary will get you

Don't buy into the hype. She's ballot box poison in the GE.

[redixdoragon]

3. Hey, right now I am persuaded much to vote for Bernie

But right now I need to know, if he doesn't make it why I shouldn't "waste my vote" and do Bernie as a write in.

I need to hear it from them. Or I just need to hear from them that "You're in California, you don't matter." and have done.

EDIT: And by "them" I mean those who support Hillary who are calling for unity to vote for her in the General. I suppose "Them" is a rather unkind way to put it.

[leftynyc]

12. If you're okay

with Donald picking the next (and possibly the next 3) supreme court justices, knock yourself out and do what you want. I don't think anyone here is going to beg you to understand reality.

[Yurovsky]

19. So HRC supporters deal in reality, and Bernie supporters ride unicorns?

is that what you're saying? Or is it that HRC cannot lose the nomination at this point (I beg to differ)? Or do you think - despite significant polling data indicating otherwise - that HRC will do better against Trump than Bernie?

If it's the first, well, you would just be one of many dismissing progressivism as fantasy, when the reality in present day America is that it is looking better to more and more people every day than the corporatist status quo.

[leftynyc]

22. Don't shove words into my mouth

It's dishonest and annoying. I'm voting for whoever has the D behind their name (and have said so since the beginning) because I don't want any con picking ANY federal judges. That's my issue. If you someone translate that into hating liberals and Bernie, that's entirely your problem.

[farleftlib]

21. Her picks for SCOTUS are as frightening to me

as Trump's. She'll put corporate friendly types like Alito on the court. So the
SCOTUS boogie man works both ways.

[leftynyc]

24. Really?

Hillary voted AGAINST Alito. If you're going to lie about shit, don't embarrass yourself by not doing your homework.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Alito_Supreme_Court_nomination

[Jackie Wilson Said]

29. You cant debate people who make absurd comments like he did, we need to resign ourselves

to the massive GOP effort to destroy Hillary, some here work for the GOP and many are just, well I wont say.

Experienced people who understand politics realize you cant put a qualifier on Hillary that no other person can live up to OTHER than the candidate she will likely beat for the nomination.

i.e. either she becomes as perfect as Bernie or I will let the fascists take over and start destroying lives....

[JudyM]

26. Absolutely right! Nt

[leftynyc]

31. Except for the fact that

Hillary voted AGAINST Alito while senator, yes, absolutely right (don't any of you do research before you spout crap like this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Alito_Supreme_Court_nomination

[JudyM]

36. Said "like" alito. Concept to grasp: a justice who's too conservative. You enjoy feeling superior,

though, so don't let anything moderate your perspective.

[leftynyc]

37. And what proof do you have that

she would do anything like that other than hating her? FYI - when you say "like someone", you are comparing them - so if you feel pointing out she voted against that nominee when comparing to a future nominee, your whole argument goes up in flames. Sorry you can't see that. No - not superior - just well versed in the courts - that's my issue.

[JudyM]

38. If you're so well versed in the courts why aren't you concerned that DOJ told the FOIA court that a

referral against her is forthcoming for use of her server?

[leftynyc]

40. I wasn't aware I shared

my feelings about that with you or anyone else on DU. Did I do it while sleepwalking?

[JudyM]

42. Ha, no. Well.. Are you concerned, then?

[Thinkingabout]

77. How are her picks for SCOTUS fightening to you, she has not made any. Where did you gather she

will put someone like Alito? It is frightening RW talking points are used.

[VulgarPoet]

4. "If you need a reason, you obviously weren't going to vote for her in the first place."

-- The inevitable Clintonista horde.

[dchill]

27. Reasons? We don't need no stinking reasons!

[NorthCarolina]

73. That doesn't even make any sense.

Are you saying that Hillary supporters just blindly follow her for no particular reason other than they just do?

Who in the world doesn't "need a reason" when deciding who to vote for?

No wonder we are where we are as a nation.

[reformist2]

88. Sadly, it kind of DOES explain a lot. A lot of Hillary voters have voted for her "just because".

[all american girl]

91. It could possibly be people don't feel the need to ask for your approval as to why they voted

for Hillary. Too may Bernie supporters have a tendency to berate those who support Hillary. Because of that, many don't want to deal with the pissing contest that happens. Sometimes it's just easier to say "just because" because many Bernie supporters don't want to listen, so why try.

[reformist2]

96. If youre not going to explain why you voted for Hillary, don't be surprised if we don't vote for her

[VulgarPoet]

94. Quoting something that was said to me by a Hillbot when I asked this same question.

It feels like blind followership to me.

[emulatorloo]

5. In the primary you should vote for the candidate you prefer

Vote for Bernie!

The GE is another calculus.

If Bernie's the nom, no problem!

If HRC's the nom, then it gets maybe a little iffy.

I personally always support the candidate that is closest to me ideologically in the primary. But even if I don't agree w the eventual nominee 100%, I will vote for them over the Republican. In pretty much all cases the Republican will destroy any progress we've made as a country.

But always it is your vote, you should use it as you wish.

[Betty Karlson]

6. You don't.

There, that was easy.

With a bit of luck and lots of sanity (among the Superdelegates) the party will not go with the seriously flawed warhawk candidate who triangulates her way into every answer that can cost her GE votes (Praise Nancy), and instead nominate the eminent senator from Vermont who guarantees a landslide victory all down the ticket in November.

For the good of the Party

For the good of the USA

For the good of the world

For the good of every man and woman

For dignity and equal rights

FEEL THE BERN!

[Dragonfli]

39. Everybody that prefers Sanders should vote for him, here's why. he is currentl 290 Pledged delegates

behind but there are more states yet to vote, and if people that vote for what is best for themselves regarding economic issues (Sanders having proved to be on the peoples side rather than the Robber Barons side of these issues consistently) , many more will vote for him yet.

Or for moral reasons, one simply prefers a candidate that is known for telling the truth rather than one that says things that appear to be lies on a regular basis (Sanders is considered by a majority to be, and if one does research actually is trustworthy, while Clinton is known by the population by a 70% margin to not be trustworthy).

The OP mentioned not bringing up social issues and fear of Drumpf, but because Sanders is facing elections where he is favored and may well pull a long string of victories, culminating in a potential landslide win in California which is extremely liberal with huge delegate numbers (Sanders does extremely well with liberals whereas Clinton is favored by center right moderates).

Combined with other factors that could be named such as his much larger appeal to Independents (the rest are nearly all, if not all open to Sanders loving Independents), and people under 50 are also highly in favor of him (most of those Independents and the younger crowd would stay home in a general for Clinton, because they are coming out for him, not her), he appears far more likely to win the General Election, he is also the only candidate left with favorable rather than record breaking unfavorability and likability numbers. At the end, if everyone that likes these liberal things that are good for the general population regarding money, and trustworthiness not to mention his non war hawk status unlike Clinton a known neocon endorsed by Kagen and Kissinger, he will help us avoid war, lots of it.

All this will bring that 290 number closer to zero if not (although unlikely) bring him close to winning the pledged majority.

All he needs is to prove they are close and he is more electable for procedural reasons steeped in the history of the way the two separate categories are designed, like them or not!

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Professor Rohde, could you explain why the Democratic Party came up with the superdelegate system and whether the Republican Party follows the same system?

DAVID ROHDE: Let me take the second part first. The Republicans have—do have some superdelegates, but it’s—I believe the number is three per state. So it’s not very important. It’s for the national party representatives from the state.
The reason that the Democrats adopted the superdelegate plan was really because of the possibility of insurgent candidates, not for their own sake, but insurgent candidates who might not be successful in general elections. So it doesn’t do the party a lot of good to nominate a candidate that reflects the wishes of the party and then to go on and lose the general election. And the poster child for this, of course, was George McGovern, and that—who was an insurgent candidate, won out against the party establishment and then got beaten by 20 points in the national election in a gigantic landslide.

So, the Hunt Commission, the commission that was looking at various aspects of the way the party was organized, after the 1980 election, thought that having superdelegates—and they—in the Democratic Party, they are the members of the National Committee, of which there are a little more than 400, Democratic members of the U.S. House, Democratic members of the U.S. Senate and Democratic governors. And that adds up to 712. And the Hunt Commission thought that having those elected officials play a part in choosing the nominee would be a partial balance that would give more weight to the considerations of electability than might otherwise be placed by the delegates that were elected in the primaries and caucuses.

AMY GOODMAN interview FEBRUARY 11, 2016
DAVID ROHDE
professor of political science at Duke University and co-author of a series of books on every national election since 1980.
MATT KARP
assistant professor of history at Princeton University and contributing editor at Jacobin. His most recent article for Jacobin is "The War on Bernie Sanders.

Some history I've been reading regarding the supposed purpose of the Superdelegates and the reason for there existence:

To nominate a candidate who can win.

While the first two rationales are more procedural, the latter two have a somewhat more specific outcome in mind. For one thing, in light of what had happened in 1972 and 1980, there was some surprisingly frank discussion about the electability of the eventual nominee:

Gov. James B. Hunt Jr. of North Carolina is chairman of the 69-member commission reviewing party nominating rules for the fourth time since 1969. He began the first regional hearing by saying that the goal was to give ordinary Democrats ''greater faith and confidence in the nominating process.''

Victory Is the Objective

''We're about the business of winning again,'' he said, in describing the objective of the commission, which is to present recommendations for action by the national committee early next year. (NYT, 9/25/81)

Gov. James B. Hunt Jr. of North Carolina, who heads the latest Democratic rule-changing group, an unwieldy, 29-member agglomeration of the innocent and the experienced, describes its task as one of writing ''rules that will help us choose a nominee who can win and who, having won, can govern effectively.'' The rules will probably matter less than the unemployment rate to a Democratic victory in 1984. But the comments underscore a traditional motive for the task of rule-changing the Democatic National Committee will finish in March. Much of this year's deliberations have seemed infused with a desire to deny future nominations to political reincarnations of the Jimmy Carter of 1976. (NYT, 1/27/82)

The concept was spawned at a meeting of party leaders after the Republicans scored smashing victories in the 1980 elections. ''There was a strong feeling,'' he said.

[Betty Karlson]

86. Thanks for that excellent addition

[TDale313]

7. Honestly, if you're in a deep blue or deep red state

then you have the "luxury" of knowing your vote in the general will likely not be decisive. I'm in California as well. If Hillary's in trouble in the General here it's already over.

It will be pretty much a statement vote. Up to you what the statement is. (FYI I'm a Bernie supporter. I've given this question a lot of thought and still struggle with it)

[VulgarPoet]

10. My home of record's one of the deepest red states currently in existence.

I'm probably writing in.

[KPN]

8. The simple truth is you don't have to and shouldn't vote for Hillary.

My son is also gay. He is 31 and voting for Bernie and says in the GE he will not vote for Hillary but will instead write in Bernie.

I asked him Why? He had a relatively simple answer: basically, "corporations and moneyed interests are heartlessly screwing all the average people regardless of race, creed, gender, age or lifestyle, and wrecking the environment. At the current rate of global warming and growing income inequality, it won't matter 20 years from now whether it was Hillary or Trump who got elected. But it might matter if it's Bernie."

I'm convinced. No Hillary vote for me -- under any condition.

I know this wasn't the answer you were looking for, but I hope it helps.

[redixdoragon]

13. It does help. It gives a similar insight from someone near my age. Thank you -nt

[KPN]

15. Peace -- and good luck with your life.

I hope things improve for you -- and all of us.

[ohheckyeah]

9. Vote the way you want to -

Nobody has a gun to your head, knock off the melodrama please.

[KPN]

17. Did you have to work being an insensitive *#&@! or ...

were you just born that way?

[ohheckyeah]

34. Do you have to work at being melodramatic or were you born that way?

[redixdoragon]

18. If social security is to be cut

Either due to austerity or privitization measures that are "required" under Hillary, or because it is "full of lazy people" under Trump, then there is a couple of guns. It just isn't yet loaded and I'm holding the bullet.

[One of the 99]

11. Vote for Bernie in the primary

but vote for the Dem nominee in November. Not voting only helps Trump.

[YouDig]

14. You don't have to.

In the primary, vote for whoever you want.

In the general, if you think Clinton is better than Trump, vote for Clinton. If you think Trump is better, vote for Trump. If you think they are the same, don't vote or vote third party.

It's up to you.

[Dem2]

16. Why put the burden of proof on others?

Vote for Minnie Mouse. My reasoning is: cuz I said so.

[BootinUp]

20. looking for other view points about Hillary and her campaign like you are doing

is a good start. Its very hard these days to find good reporting on politics, because anywhere you look there is highly biased, inaccurate, and even dishonest stuff mixed in. I suggest that you listen to Hillary herself. Watch her speeches or read some of what she has written. If money is not tight you might even consider buying a copy of her book to read.

[Sheepshank]

23. Perhaps read all of Warren's tweets will convince you that keeping Trump out of the WH is important

[redixdoragon]

25. I will do that thank you

She has advocated for those of us in trouble, so I will take to her word.

[Sheepshank]

35. just a start

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511896723

[SpareribSP]

44. This has nothing to do with the primary vote.

All I'm seeing in this thread is to vote Hillary to be anti-Trump. Very little pro-Hillary.

Hillary is running against Bernie right now, not Trump. Not to mention, running based on fear tactics is no good. Make a solid case!

[MoonRiver]

69. So do you not think keeping Trump out of the White House is a good idea?

[SpareribSP]

70. Trying to motivate me through fear of a Trump presidency feels dishonest.

[MoonRiver]

71. Wake up call, nobody is trying to motivate you here!

I don't give a rat's xyz what you do!

[SpareribSP]

75. Isn't this what the thread is about?

Not me personally, but I just don't think it's an effective way to woo people. Attempting to sway someone through fear while we're still in the primaries smacks of nasty right-wing tactics. You'll get a lot of backlash.

[MoonRiver]

79. Reality is sometimes scary.

But nobody is doing anything other than point out the obvious.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

95. Some Bernie supporters are doing the exact same thing

So many threads ominously warning Hillary supporters that nominating her would deliver a Trump Presidency.

[Jester Messiah]

28. It's kind of like that one scene in Braveheart.

Royal Magistrate: William Wallace, you stand intained of High Treason.
William: Against whom?
Royal Magistrate: Against your (queen). Have you anything to say?
William: Never in my whole life did I swear allegiance to (her.)
Royal Magistrate: It matters not. (She) is your (queen.)

[Phlem]

30. Vote for who you want bud.

That's what it's all about.

[merrily]

32. All your votes are yours, but most especially your primary votes. Vote Sanders and

beg every Californian you know to do the same.

I hope you canvass and phone bank, too.

[jehop61]

33. Vote for who you want

but as a gay man, do you want the ability to marry taken away from your community? The Supreme Court decision last year could be nullified by new justices appointed by a Republican President. It's essentially the difference between having a right or having it taken away. We need another Democratic President!

[Dragonfli]

41. Everybody that prefers Sanders should vote for him, here's why. he is currentl 290 Pledged delegates

behind but there are more states yet to vote, and if people that vote for what is best for themselves regarding economic issues (Sanders having proved to be on the peoples side rather than the Robber Barons side of these issues consistently) , many more will vote for him yet.

Or for moral reasons, one simply prefers a candidate that is known for telling the truth rather than one that says things that appear to be lies on a regular basis (Sanders is considered by a majority to be, and if one does research actually is trustworthy, while Clinton is known by the population by a 70% margin to not be trustworthy).

The OP mentioned not bringing up social issues and fear of Drumpf, but because Sanders is facing elections where he is favored and may well pull a long string of victories, culminating in a potential landslide win in California which is extremely liberal with huge delegate numbers (Sanders does extremely well with liberals whereas Clinton is favored by center right moderates).

Combined with other factors that could be named such as his much larger appeal to Independents (the rest are nearly all, if not all open to Sanders loving Independents), and people under 50 are also highly in favor of him (most of those Independents and the younger crowd would stay home in a general for Clinton, because they are coming out for him, not her), he appears far more likely to win the General Election, he is also the only candidate left with favorable rather than record breaking unfavorability and likability numbers. At the end, if everyone that likes these liberal things that are good for the general population regarding money, and trustworthiness not to mention his non war hawk status unlike Clinton a known neocon endorsed by Kagen and Kissinger, he will help us avoid war, lots of it.

All this will bring that 290 number closer to zero if not (although unlikely) bring him close to winning the pledged majority.

All he needs is to prove they are close and he is more electable for procedural reasons steeped in the history of the way the two separate categories of delegates were designed, like them or not!

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Professor Rohde, could you explain why the Democratic Party came up with the superdelegate system and whether the Republican Party follows the same system?

DAVID ROHDE: Let me take the second part first. The Republicans have—do have some superdelegates, but it’s—I believe the number is three per state. So it’s not very important. It’s for the national party representatives from the state.
The reason that the Democrats adopted the superdelegate plan was really because of the possibility of insurgent candidates, not for their own sake, but insurgent candidates who might not be successful in general elections. So it doesn’t do the party a lot of good to nominate a candidate that reflects the wishes of the party and then to go on and lose the general election. And the poster child for this, of course, was George McGovern, and that—who was an insurgent candidate, won out against the party establishment and then got beaten by 20 points in the national election in a gigantic landslide.

So, the Hunt Commission, the commission that was looking at various aspects of the way the party was organized, after the 1980 election, thought that having superdelegates—and they—in the Democratic Party, they are the members of the National Committee, of which there are a little more than 400, Democratic members of the U.S. House, Democratic members of the U.S. Senate and Democratic governors. And that adds up to 712. And the Hunt Commission thought that having those elected officials play a part in choosing the nominee would be a partial balance that would give more weight to the considerations of electability than might otherwise be placed by the delegates that were elected in the primaries and caucuses.

AMY GOODMAN interview FEBRUARY 11, 2016
DAVID ROHDE
professor of political science at Duke University and co-author of a series of books on every national election since 1980.
MATT KARP
assistant professor of history at Princeton University and contributing editor at Jacobin. His most recent article for Jacobin is "The War on Bernie Sanders.

Some history I've been reading regarding the supposed purpose of the Superdelegates and the reason for there existence:

To nominate a candidate who can win.

While the first two rationales are more procedural, the latter two have a somewhat more specific outcome in mind. For one thing, in light of what had happened in 1972 and 1980, there was some surprisingly frank discussion about the electability of the eventual nominee:

Gov. James B. Hunt Jr. of North Carolina is chairman of the 69-member commission reviewing party nominating rules for the fourth time since 1969. He began the first regional hearing by saying that the goal was to give ordinary Democrats ''greater faith and confidence in the nominating process.''

Victory Is the Objective

''We're about the business of winning again,'' he said, in describing the objective of the commission, which is to present recommendations for action by the national committee early next year. (NYT, 9/25/81)

Gov. James B. Hunt Jr. of North Carolina, who heads the latest Democratic rule-changing group, an unwieldy, 29-member agglomeration of the innocent and the experienced, describes its task as one of writing ''rules that will help us choose a nominee who can win and who, having won, can govern effectively.'' The rules will probably matter less than the unemployment rate to a Democratic victory in 1984. But the comments underscore a traditional motive for the task of rule-changing the Democatic National Committee will finish in March. Much of this year's deliberations have seemed infused with a desire to deny future nominations to political reincarnations of the Jimmy Carter of 1976. (NYT, 1/27/82)

The concept was spawned at a meeting of party leaders after the Republicans scored smashing victories in the 1980 elections. ''There was a strong feeling,'' he said.

[JoePhilly]

46. The SDs are not going to jump to Bernie if he does not have a majority of pledged delegates.

Not. Happening. Period. End of story.

[Dragonfli]

47. Learn your party history, If what you say is true, we would not have any Superdelegates.

You appear not to have read the bit of party history I was up all night confirming. (I was a living, voting member of the party the entire time this was happening, so my memory was already there, my research was for liars that would deny history)

If it means anything to you, I don't think we should have super duper special (some able to be bought and are even now upon occasion lobbyists) delegates at all, but the reason they were put in place was to step in to avoid losing a GE due to us silly voters.

If they don't do their job, the one they were put into place to do, during this election and we lose seats and maybe the presidency because of a weak and scandal ridden nominee for president that will assure a low turnout among the young and Independents we need, THEY MOST DEFINITELY NEED TO BE RUN OUT ON A RAIL let alone stop existing as a newly vestigial party organ used only as a purchasable commodity.

[JoePhilly]

49. You used history to rationalize an argument for why a group you think ...

... should not exist, should over turn the will of the primary voters, and do something you think they should not be doing in the first place.

Which is some mighty fine gymnastics.

Here is what's going to happen.

After CA, Hillary will have a majority of the pledged delegates and a majority of the SDs, just like she does now. And the SDs will all declare who they intend to vote for, and again, the vast majority will commit to Hillary.

I do get the sense that you think threatening them will somehow scare them into switching. Not going to happen.

They will not suddenly switch to Bernie no matter how much you wish for it.

[Dragonfli]

50. I don't think they should exist, but they do, and they have a function, no gymnastics needed.

I also think we should not have a different system in every State, and I believe we should use the UN model of elections (with UN monitors), but we don't and the voter suppression and election fraud will continue because of it, yet I still think we should all vote anyway in our varying States (at least when and where the new Jim Crow or election fraud is not interfering and disenfranchising us), no gymnastics required there either.

You appear to be saying that the SD's will completely ignore their intended function and are indeed purchased by Clinton, interesting.
Nauseating, but interesting. You are probably right, the Government is corrupt as hell and Hillary is a pro at using corruption in her favor sadly.

[JoePhilly]

51. I'm saying the SDs will absolutely perform their intended function.

They'll vote for the candidate that they each think is the best candidate. And that candidate will be Hillary Clinton.

You seem to think that because YOU don't think she's the best candidate, they must align with YOU. The SDs are under no such requirement.

The SDs will vote for the candidate they prefer, and that candidate will be Hillary.

[Dragonfli]

54. I think the high negatives she has earned and the numbers themselves will show she is

the least electable especially among Independents and young people that EVERYBODY KNOWS will stay home if her dishonesty in chief is coronated the nominee, these SD's will see the numbers themselves.

He will have to win another run on the States to earn his own viability, but I think he will, and she is, all things considered a very weak, very disliked, and extremely un-trusted politician among the general electorate, that IS the recipe for a low voter turnout.

Not to mention making history as the first Democratic candidate to try to run an election while fighting 3 separate FBI investigations, as well as two separate intelligence agency investigations all at the same time.

[JoePhilly]

55. The SDs will use their own criteria no matter how many ALL CAPS ...

... you use. And they'll vote for Hillary.

[Dragonfli]

58. Because you say so?

Didn't you just say about me... oh never mind.

Time to place you n ignore, you are not one to make logical sense and thus not worth time trying o have an intelligent discussion with.

[JoePhilly]

59. Because they've already said so.

You seem to be unaware of that.

[Dragonfli]

60. You appear to be unaware of their history or intended function. /nt

[JoePhilly]

61. Very aware of both. And that will become clear to you relatively soon.

[Dragonfli]

57. They are not charged with voting the one they "prefer" but the one that is electable.

They are not there to decide who they "like" personally, nor is it a contest of personal friendship for them, not as designed anyway.

[99Forever]

43. Haven't you heard?

Cuz she's a girl and it's her damn turn.

[hack89]

45. California will have no impact on who will be the nominee so vote your conscience. nt

[Xyzse]

48. For the Primaries, there is no reason not to vote with your conscience and soul. General Elections

Unfortunately, General Elections, I tend to think it is where one must vote out of duty towards the country.
To do the research and figure out who would cause the least damage to the country.

That, is my firm belief. I will be extremely fair to both candidates though at the moment, I will say that I will vote for the Democrat no matter what. Hillary Clinton, has been making that harder and harder for me to say with conviction.

The way she campaigned, her attacks, her campaign itself verily hinged on suppressing the vote, dissuading people to vote, automatically saying that her opponent should just give up at the beginning of the Primaries. Of course, doing such a thing is counter-productive, as those sorts of actions tend to force people to dig in their heels, and fight even harder.

The way they talked about issues was to attack Sanders on his positive record, while extolling hers, which has been unsuccessful as he's been quite consistent with his, while she compromised with hers, as such, her positions are all over the place from guns, to lgbt rights, to trade and foreign policy. Some would call that evolving and learning, while others would call that cowardly and just following the popular position, at worst people would just call her a liar.

This is the campaign itself, I am not even including her supporters' actions. I could care less what her supporters say and do, as people get heated up, I can see the childish behavior of Bernie supporters as well, and where I find many did not pay attention to the process until much later in the primaries, calling unfairness to the system, when they did not familiarize themselves on it to begin with. Be that as it may, I find the arrogance and glee at the suppression of votes to be distasteful and disgusting.

So again, for the primaries, feel free to vote for what you want. That is what the primaries are for. In the General Election, I will campaign and help hard for Sanders, but all I can commit to for Hillary at the moment is that I would vote for her.

Again, I will be very fair in looking at what positives and negatives both have, and theorize their effects. Due to this, I can actually see why some Independents and Democrats might either write in or vote against Clinton. I note, that some of these individuals do not pay as much attention, while some really do.

In the General Election, whomever it is, will go against a seasoned liar, who doesn't even think while lying, so that in many ways, he believes his lie. Clinton, has to think about her position and actually calibrate, which makes her sound unconvincing, even if what she says is true.

Trump is now the nominee, I know some who theorize that it is best if America has a weak President as it would allow America to normalize and regain stability as no life-changing laws are passed. The Executive branch sets the agenda, but the Legislative Branch will still create the laws, blunting his effect. Granted the Executive branch is tasked with the implementation, but again, Congress has the purse strings. This is what some people who pay attention think. I think they are absolutely bonkers, but I know people think this way.

Trump, though he does a crazy scheme where he loans himself money for his campaign through his business, can basically say he is not owned by the Super PACS, other corporations or anything of that matter. His method of running his campaign is a contained corruption, untouched by other impurities other than his own. Kinda nasty, but it is what it is. Clinton's use of her Victory Fund which shows laundering of funds and the usage of Super PACS looks bad. I mean, all the things they have done are technically legal, but just because things are technically legal does not make it right either. Bernie's grass roots method quite amazes me, as it is through mostly small donations alone, indicating support from more people, generally those who decided to sit out the process to begin with and new voters.

There are two basic promises that Trump has made, and there are only really two. One is in regards to immigration, which is insane, and the other which is in regards to renegotiating deals. The first one is a non-starter, and since America has due process, whatever he tries to do will be blunted. The other promise can resonate to more than just Republicans and Independents, as it involves changing the agreements in to more favorable terms if possible. Trump, sucks as a businessman, but he is able to get great deals for himself.

Since he has made really only two promises, and if you look at what he campaigns on, he does not have any real policy. It allows him to be able to tell people that he did not promise anything, and he can go in any way or form that he wants. This makes him both dangerous in many ways. It could work for the detriment or benefit of America. Unfortunately, since Clinton has been in so many different places on an issue, and she seems to have moved towards the right in many things especially now after the primaries are winding down (The fact that they say Bernie has made her move to the left enough is an idiotic statement to me, and in many ways her campaign is a Republican one, from her debate that starts of with 9/11, to the glee in suppressing votes, I find that distasteful, as she's really going towards a fine line there). As such, Pathos makes me think Trump as a negative, Clinton much less so, Ethos makes me think they are equally negative in regards to their promises, willingness to honor them and their integrity, Logos makes me wonder who really is worse when put in to balance everything.

With Obama, the way he started was to triangulate/calibrate and offer what seems to be a balanced point when dealing with Republicans. Unfortunately, those individuals are insane and unwilling to look at reason, so they asked for more and more. That in itself would not have been bad, had Obama been more steadfast and try to bring them further to his point of view, by asking for more, not giving them what they want initially. In doing so, the country was forced to the right, especially as Obama chastised Democrats for not going along bad negotiated bills. It also showed Republicans that Obama will give them what they want, even if they went insane. Only until the 2nd term did that lessen.

That is something that many other Democrats that I talk to believe. They don't see starting off negotiations with giving the Republicans what they want as a credible way of doing things.

See, I am not willing to allow a Republican to win the Presidency and provide them some sort of legitimacy from their bad behavior. I just don't want that. Hence, pathos, I don't see myself writing someone in or voting Republican. I just can't do it.

However, for others, it is not enough to campaign on "Be Scared of the Big Bad Trump". Logically, there are reasons why some people can balance the scales in regards to negativity between both Trump and Clinton. It could be circular, and gymnastics in coming up with them, but that is what they have to deal with.

I can't defend Clinton or campaign for her when I think she is a huge negative and much of her negatives is due to her own compromises and pandering. So, all I can commit to is that vote.

As for you, you have to come up with your own reasons. I just think Trump is the bigger net negative, and will vote accordingly.

[Garrett78]

52. A Trump Administration will push for a flat tax.

A Clinton Administration will push to maintain or even expand upon progressive taxation.

A Trump Admin will push for a massive amount of wasteful spending on anti-immigrant measures, exploiting bigotry and xenophobia.

And for all the talk about Clinton being hawkish and her husband signing off on NAFTA, I wouldn't trust Trump to be even remotely better on those matters.

And so on. I get being frustrated with the Democratic Party, I truly do. You can vote however you wish, but please don't be naive enough to think a Clinton Admin would do nearly as much harm as a Trump Admin.

[lancer78]

53. Think of my cousin

who was raped and impregnated by the rapist. Trump will nominate conservative Justices who will overturn Roe V. Wade. The makeup of SCOTUS should be more then enough reason to vote for HRC in the GE if she is our nominee.

Vote for whomever you wish in the CA primary.

[Maedhros]

62. Think of all the women and children in Libya who live in abject misery

because Hillary pushed for war based on lies about genocide.

We don't need someone like that in the White House either.

[lancer78]

64. Trump would have pushed for

war just like she did. I am not happy with her either, but Roe V. Wade needs to be protected.

[Maedhros]

67. So do the lives of children in the countries Hillary will bomb.[n/t]

[lancer78]

80. Wait a minute

Are you blaming Hillary for starting the civil war in Libya?

[Thinkingabout]

81. I think about the parents of gun violence victims in the USA, gun violence kills about 80 people

a day average in the US and we don't have a Congress who can get the vote right on gun control, Sanders voted five times against the Brady Bill.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. 'Cuz baby Jesus will cry and throw a tantrum if you don't follow the commandment.

[Amimnoch]

63. In short.. It's your vote, and you use it the way you see fit.

Especially in the Primary season (and it is still going on for us Democrats at least), always vote your conscience. No obligation, but I recommend always at least listening to what the other side has to say and give it fair consideration.

On the particular issue you have greatest interest in, here's a couple of comparable articles:
Here’s What President Donald Trump Would Do To The Economy

Hillary Clinton 2016 Economic Plan

Personally, I look at congress for the direction a candidate can go. Frankly, I don't see Hillary's propose $15/hr wage (adapted only to be competitive with Sanders) has any more possibility of passing than her originally proposed $12 minimum. No executive order or other power of the POTUS will get that to happen.. it has to start with Congress, and with pretty big certainty the 115th congress isn't going to pass it.. at least not without enough smelly crap going into that bill to win enough Republicans over to signing onto it.

So, why? Between her and Trump, she's the one I feel most confident to use the Veto pen on republican passed bills that do make it through congress. As hostile as congress is going to be for either Democratic Party candidate, they won't have the numbers for Veto override, and she'll make them get progressive measures added at the least.

My mother has already lost her home and is living with, and very dependent on me and my husband. My mother in law is likewise living with us. My brother depends on a large chunk of my mothers social security check so that he can keep my niece and nephew housed and fed. I take care of many of my grandmothers bills. My husband and I regularly feed our mothers a decent meal that meets their dietary needs, and state that we're not that hungry to have a bologna sandwich and cup of rhamen noodles in our bedroom later.

If we had a better congress coming up, I'd be more confident of Hillary's economic plan. IMO it's actually a pretty good one, but I don't see it as being realistic. I do feel that a Trump presidency, especially if the Republicans do manage to hold on to the Senate majority would be much worse for us economically.

Likewise, I don't feel that either your vote or my vote is going to make that big of a difference. Hillary or Bernie, California is almost definitely a Democrat state in the GE.. Likewise Texas (where I'm stuck) is almost definitely going to be a Republican state in the GE... Florida, and Ohio are once again going to be the king(or queen) maker states. Especially Ohio.. No president has been elected without their electoral votes since Kennedy.

[bigwillq]

65. You don't. You do. It's up to you.

Do what you want; it's your vote.

Research for yourself, and make the best decision you can. Good luck.

[SidDithers]

66. Do your own homework...

Make your own decision.

Sid

[MoonRiver]

68. I don't care how you vote.

Why is it important for you to have us convince you to vote for Hillary? It's your choice, not ours.

[dana_b]

72. No, she won't

Your situation is a very tough and one that many of us can relate to. I don't think Hillary can nor wants to. I never hear her talk about the poor, disabled, people going through very tough times. I do hear Bernie speaking of them - a lot.

Like me, you also live in California so honestly we can vote for anyone that we want to. It won't matter as the Democratic candidate will win here.

[randome]

74. There are quite a few appearances of 'I' in your post.

Do you think you might consider a larger picture? Since Clinton is obviously (okay, okay, 99.9% obvious) going to be our nominee, maybe you could vote for the welfare of others instead of solely yourself? We cannot allow the GOP to ram through another conservative Supreme Court judge. That, in itself, pertains to the welfare of the entire country.

But that's on you to decide. I don't think you should see yourself as special enough to be 'courted'. Vote for whoever you want but maybe keep in mind that there are other issues besides yours to consider.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[Lucinda]

76. I mean this is the nicest possible way. Do your homework.

I would NEVER take the word of people on the internet as a rationale for making a choice. I may ask for opinions from people about things i've researched, but your vote is very important and IMO it should be based on what you learn yourself. Watch a few of the town halls with both candidates. Look at voting records. Then vote for your best choice.

[PatrickforO]

78. Bernie's not out of it yet.

Go ahead and vote for him. I'm right with you on the economic issues.

[annavictorious]

82. Sanders is good at talking.

Hillary is good at working.

I think Hillary's economic plan is more comprehensive, more detailed, more nuanced, and more do-able.
Sander's proposals depend on fairly aggressive tax hikes. He'd have a near impossibles task ushering those hikes through Congress.

Go to the candidates' websites and compare their plans.

[Time for change]

83. IMO there is no reason whatsoever to vote for her in the primary

Bernie has been a champion of the poor and vulnerable all of his career. Hillary has not. Though it looks like he is likely to lose the nomination, we are not giving up, and even if he does lose the nomination, he needs to take the race to the convention in order to get his message through to more people: We need a president who is beholding to the American people, rather than one who is beholding to the rich and powerful who fund their campaigns.

The GE is a tougher call, if she is the nominee. Perhaps the best reason to vote for her in the GE would be that maybe she is more likely to pick a better nominee for the USSC than Trump would. But I'm not even sure of that. If she is the nominee I will watch the debates and, based on those and the past history of the two candidates I will make a decision. I will not vote for her just because she is a Dem. The Democratic Party has moved so far to the right in recent years, and they have put so many obstacles in the path of someone who would probably be the best president we've had of my lifetime, that I honestly believe that the Democratic Party itself would rather see a Trump Presidency than have power in their party turned over to Bernie Sanders.

[PowerToThePeople]

84. I will not.

In fact, if Clinton takes the nomination, I will never again cast another vote for any Democratic candidate.

I will be forever done with the Democratic party.

If she gets the nomination and wins the Presidency, republicans will start impeachment proceedings on day #1. Enjoy the next 4 years.

[pat_k]

85. Vote for Bernie in the Primary.

We need to demonstrate the depth of support for his agenda going into the convention. Every dollar he raises, every vote he gets, challenges beltway group think.

Let's get through the convention, then we can talk about reasons to vote for whoever the Democratic nominee ends up being.

[Lil Missy]

87. Vote as you please; she can win without you.

[B Calm]

89. That's the smug attitude of a winning campaign. LOL

[Lil Missy]

90. It's a good response for people that make demands in order to do the right thing.

Democrats vote for the nominee. You're either a Democrat - or not.

[B Calm]

92. Continue on. .

[w4rma]

93. Between Clinton and Trump, neither will say why you should vote FOR one of them.

They are just going to tear one another down. Trump is a despicable nominee and Clinton is a despicable front-runner.