Why Refusing To Vote For Clinton & Risking A Trump Presidency Is A Privileged Choice

[HarmonyRockets]

[link:https://www.romper.com/p/why-refusing-to-vote-for-clinton-risking-a-trump-presidency-is-a-privileged-choice-12084|

https://www.romper.com/p/why-refusing-to-vote-for-clinton-risking-a-trump-presidency-is-a-privileged-choice-12084

Written by a Bernie supporter. I know this general sentiment has already been posted here several times, but I think it's very well put. As a Bernie supporter I completely agree.

...but what about when Trump nominates an uber right wing justice to the Supreme Court who decides to wipe out a woman's right to choose? Or he actually somehow manages to pass a ban on all Muslims from entering the United States? Or what if he does try to sign a law allowing journalists to be thrown in jail for criticizing politicians? As informed voters, we are supposed to take people running for office — even when they have zero experience — at their word and at their platform.

...So, what's confusing, then, is how any of those things affect the average Bernie or Bust-er. It's nice when people say they understand and care about the suffering of millions of women who could be denied access to essential healthcare, or the hundreds of thousands of Muslims who could be denied entry to the country, or the hundreds of jailed journalists, but to not have to worry about being one of those people is something else entirely. People who are forfeiting their votes should be OK with the idea that life could get harder for Muslims, immigrants, generally, and for people abroad (because Trump won't know what to do about a threat of terrorism).

...In what is shaping up to be an historic general election for so many reasons, the choice to vote for anyone but Clinton — or worse yet, to not vote at all — undermines the fundamental principle of democracy: That votes count, that voices matter, and that both of those things affect others. And, to be perfectly candid — abstaining from voting at all in the general election is just lazy wannabe slacktivism at its worst. If those voters who've been "Berned" feel the need to bust the democratic process by not voting at all, then how invested could they have really been in the issues that Sanders promoted on his campaign? Choosing not to vote at all because your candidate didn't make the ticket is a short-sighted political temper tantrum that does nothing to help anyone or advance any political cause you supported.

[PowerToThePeople]

1. We are invested in the issues Bernie supports

but do not believe the other choices support those causes.

Pretty simple imo.

[HarmonyRockets]

3. So is it fair to say

that you would be ambivilent towards whether or not Trump or Clinton became president because you don't think it would have an effect on you personally?

[PowerToThePeople]

4. They will borh be bad for this nation imo.

I can not support Clinton and I would never support Trump.

[HarmonyRockets]

9. So you can't find any ways in which

a President Trump would lead to worse outcomes for people than a Democratic administration? You don't think Muslims would have it worse, immigrants would have it worse, the poor would have it worse, women would have it worse, the environment would have it worse? You don't think we would be more likely to get gun control measures under Clinton? You don't think we would get liberal judges that could overturn Citizens United? I want to understand exactly what your position is. Maybe you just don't care about these things because they are not your pet issue and don't impact you directly?

[PowerToThePeople]

11. I will not vote for Trump

[HarmonyRockets]

14. You will not do anything to stop him

[PowerToThePeople]

17. Who says?

Or is voting for HRC the only method of fighting him you will accept?

[Demsrule86]

19. It is the only way to fight Trump.

[PowerToThePeople]

20. I disagree.

[One of the 99]

25. You're wrong.

To quote Bernie supporter Robert Reich:

Which brings me to those of you who say there’s no real difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

That’s just plain wrong. Trump has revealed himself to be a narcissistic, xenophobic, hatemonger who, if elected, would legitimize bigotry, appoint Supreme Court justices with terrible values, and have direct access to the button that could set off a nuclear war.
...
I can’t criticize anyone for voting their conscience, of course. But your conscience should know that a decision not to vote for Hillary, should she become the Democratic nominee, is a de facto decision to help Donald Trump.

http://new.www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/advice-for-divided-democrats_b_10162184.html

[azurnoir]

49. Maybe Reich wants his old job back

[Demsrule86]

79. Or maybe he recognized the danger of Trump

While you folks talk cloud talk.

[One of the 99]

90. Or maybe he is a patriot who wants what is best for his country

and fellow citizens.

[anigbrowl]

107. I can't help noticing the absence of any alternative proposal from you.

[HarmonyRockets]

23. It's not my decision.

I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries so if it were up to me it would be Bernie vs. Trump in the GE. Now that Hillary is the nominee, voting for her (particularly if you live in a swing state) is the only method to defeat Trump. Staying home or writing in Bernie Sanders or voting for Jill Stein isn't a method period.

[Silver_Witch]

70. I don't think either candidate will stop citizens united!

As a woman I trust neither candidate to fight for us IF our rights would make a good bargaining chip!

[Demsrule86]

80. You are supporting Trump

Let's see...a woman's right to choose gone with the courts, the courts, war -possibly nuclear, harassment and perhaps murder of LGBT and anyone with a 'foreign' last name...the choice is clear...and your behavior irresponsible.

[Exilednight]

74. False choice.

Both will harm our country in different ways. Hillary through foreign policy and poor economic choices that do very little to benefit the working poor. Trump by exploiting social issues and the same foreign policy issues.

It's like asking if I want to drink urine or eat crap.

[floriduck]

101. I've never quite heard it put with such precision. Are you a surgeon?

[Exilednight]

103. No. My undergrad is in journalism, along with an MBA and a masters in economics.

[floriduck]

112. Nice.

[qdouble]

2. Well I stated a lot of the exact sentiments in my thread on this topic. Mostly, all you'll get is a

lot of deflection.

[Live and Learn]

5. Sometimes you have to hit rock bottom before change is made.

No more enabling.

[bettyellen]

6. Ahhh, the childish fantasy of "Berning it down"....

Slacktavism at its finest.

[Live and Learn]

12. As opposed to the childishness of ignoring all warnings and acting surprised when something happens?

[HarmonyRockets]

7. Just like how we had to vote Nader

in 2000 to hit rock bottom with Bush, right? Because that really changed a lot, didn't it? I'm guessing you weren't one of the ones that had to "hit rock bottom" under Bush. You probably didn't die in the Middle East or die after Hurricane Katrina. And you probably won't be the one hitting rock bottom under a President Trump. But you'll sacrifice others for that, huh?

[Live and Learn]

10. You do know that was due to the Supreme Court ruling , not Nader, don't you?

Why does blaming Nader make you feel better? It is up to Democrats to get enough of the vote so the winner is clear. And to do so honestly.

If you ask me, Gore gave up much too easily. Thankfully, Bernie doesn't.

[Demsrule86]

15. Nader was a traitor...had he not run

SCOTUS would not have been involved....he is dead to me as is the green traitor party. All they ever accomplish is to tear things down.

[Live and Learn]

21. A traitor? To what? Are you claiming veryone in the Green party is a traitor?

Ridiculous.

[swhisper1]

50. anything other than the paty is a traitor to them. Nader did save alot of lives

in his niche, he was great, and that niche is rising again

[Live and Learn]

59. Yes he did. He is a bit to arrogant for my taste but he did a lot of good and is certainly

not a traitor. Quite surreal to see such statements made here.

[swhisper1]

60. those types dont do any research

yes, he always was arrogant, but fearless

[Raster]

27. Oh please.

You don't think the 200,000 registered Florida Dems that voted for Bush* had anything to do with it?

Nader had every right to run, and No, I did not vote for him. But I get so shit-fed-full of the Nader shit, I could scream. Crack a book. Learn some history. There were MANY REASONS Cheney*/Bush* stole the White House, and none of them were or are Ralph Nader.

[One of the 99]

35. Ralph Nader enabled Bush.

Let's forget that Nader took Republican money to run TV ads that lied about Gore's positions on the West Coast causing Gore to divert money from Florida to counter those ads. Let's forget that Nader cost Gore New Hampshire which would have made Florida irrelevant.

Let's just look at Florida:

All polling studies that were done, for both the 2000 and the 2004 U.S. Presidential elections, indicated that Nader drained at least 2 to 5 times as many voters from the Democratic candidate as he did from the Republican Bush. (This isn’t even considering throw-away Nader voters who would have stayed home and not voted if Nader had not been in the race; they didn’t count in these calculations at all.) Nader’s 97,488 Florida votes contained vastly more than enough to have overcome the official Jeb Bush / Katherine Harris / count, of a 537-vote Florida “victory” for G.W. Bush. In their 24 April 2006 detailed statistical analysis of the 2000 Florida vote, “Did Ralph Nader Spoil a Gore Presidency?” (available on the internet), Michael C. Herron of Dartmouth and Jeffrey B. Lewis of UCLA stated flatly, “We find that ... Nader was a spoiler for Gore.” David Paul Kuhn, CBSNews.com Chief Political Writer, headlined on 27 July 2004, “Nader to Crash Dems Party?” and he wrote: “In 2000, Voter News Service exit polling showed that 47 percent of Nader’s Florida supporters would have voted for Gore, and 21 percent for Mr. Bush, easily covering the margin of Gore’s loss.” Nationwide, Harvard’s Barry C. Burden, in his 2001 paper at the American Political Science Association, “Did Ralph Nader Elect George W. Bush?” (also on the internet) presented “Table 3: Self-Reported Effects of Removing Minor Party Candidates,” showing that in the VNS exit polls, 47.7% of Nader’s voters said they would have voted instead for Gore, 21.9% said they would have voted instead for Bush, and 30.5% said they wouldn’t have voted in the Presidential race, if Nader were had not been on the ballot. (This same table also showed that the far tinier nationwide vote for Patrick Buchanan would have split almost evenly between Bush and Gore if Buchanan hadn’t been in the race: Buchanan was not a decisive factor in the outcome.) The Florida sub-sample of Nader voters was actually too small to draw such precise figures, but Herron and Lewis concluded that approximately 60% of Florida’s Nader voters would have been Gore voters if the 2000 race hadn’t included Nader. Clearly, Ralph Nader drew far more votes from Gore than he did from Bush, and on this account alone was an enormous Republican asset in 2000.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

Also see: https://www.quora.com/Did-Ralph-Naders-candidacy-cost-the-Democrats-the-White-House-in-2000

[Demsrule86]

18. How nice that poor Americans are so expendable in Bernie world.

Easy to say...that it is fine for others to suffer at the hands of Trump because then real change will come. I doubt it very much first of all...and secondly, how are you different from a Republican who does not give a crap about people and cares only about a political philosophy. How many died during Katrina or in the wars? How many died without health care...no wonder Trump thinks he can get Bernie voters.

[Live and Learn]

22. And you believe Hillary cares about poor people? Interesting.

Quite naive but interesting.

[swhisper1]

51. its infectious tunnelvision

[Live and Learn]

58. Isn't it though. nt

[Demsrule86]

81. Yes A hillary presidency would stop the GOP cold.

They would not be able to starve babies, end health care, privatize social security and medicare, send medicaid completely to the states...give the banks the house.

[Live and Learn]

96. They won't have to because Hillary will do some of that herself.

But I am sure that is fine with some here.

[peace13]

77. Wow.....the fact that you think Hill will lift a finger for poor or minorities is priceless.

Her record speaks for itself. Good luck.

[Demsrule86]

83. You are wrong

And anyone who reads Paul Ryan's budget or anti-poverty program knows what the GOP will do...well tomorrow I won't have to listen to your nonsense anymore...you can join the green traitors. A progressive Democrat you are not.

[peace13]

85. OK

But I won't be joining traitors. I won't be working to elect anyone who coined the phrase super predators. I can tell you that. I won't vote for that.

[Demsrule86]

100. So vote for the guy who is fine with using

nukes in Syria and possibly Europe.

[Live and Learn]

97. Nope, you are refusing to see the truth. nt

[One of the 99]

28. Except history doesn't support you

With each loss to the GOP the country has moved farther to the right. That's how we got here in the first place.

[Live and Learn]

30. And here I thought we got here because the DLC and the Clintons sold us out.

Thanks for setting me straight.

[One of the 99]

31. The DLC was a reaction

to the GOP winning three elections in a row and five of the previous six. That's history.

[Live and Learn]

32. A ridiculous non-solution. And history doesn't bear your theory out. nt

[One of the 99]

37. Yes it does.

Are you disputing that the GOP won elections in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984 and 1988?

To quote Robert Reich:

Some of you agree a Trump presidency would be a disaster but claim it would galvanize a forceful progressive movement in response.

That’s unlikely. Rarely if ever in history has a sharp swing to the right moved the political pendulum further back in the opposite direction. Instead, it tends to move the “center” rightward, as did Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

http://new.www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/advice-for-divided-democrats_b_10162184.html

[Live and Learn]

38. Cycles! nt

[One of the 99]

89. Non-sensical answer.

Not surprising.

[Live and Learn]

94. Ditto! nt

[One of the 99]

98. Weak comeback nt

[anigbrowl]

110. I'm starting to think we have a Rushbot here. nt

[anigbrowl]

109. When you lack an argument, retreat to obscurity

You are what comes of watching too much TV and not reading enough; you think dramatic reactions constitute an argument, because that's the only sort of discourse you're able to understand. It's sad that you can't even put a few sentences together to explain your theory, but instead just randomly regurgitate catchphrases you've heard from other people without really understanding how they fit together.

[Live and Learn]

115. If you are unable to understand the cycles, i really can't help you. nt

[anigbrowl]

120. If you're unable to articulate your ideas on cycles, I don't need your help

You don't strike me as the sharpest knife in the drawer...perhaps that's why your posts read like bad TV dialog.

[swhisper1]

53. it was an opportunistic plot for corporate take over, well organized and executed

[Live and Learn]

62. +1000 nt

[One of the 99]

88. Yes they started plotting it in 1980

and then threw 3 presidential elections in a row. Get real.

[Demsrule86]

86. Most of the damage was done during Bush...the green traitors enabled him.

[Live and Learn]

95. Green traitors? I think the traitors are the ones that sold our party out. nt

[Demsrule86]

99. the green traitor spent months saying Bush and Gore were the same.

They were wrong...they got Bush elected...and we all paid the price. The greens are dead to me as is Nader.

[anigbrowl]

108. You thought wrong

But I've noticed that analysis isn't really your thing to start with.

[redStateBlueHeart]

47. Ding ding ding. Bingo! n/t

[gollygee]

102. That is what it's about

You have to have the privilege to know you'll survive "rock bottom" to let that happen.

[anigbrowl]

106. By that logic Hitler was great for Germany

It's so democratic now, so WW2 was totally worth it, amirite?

See, I have a bit of an issue with your position because when Donald Trump talks about rounding up immigrants he dislikes and sending him out of the country that's going to personally affect me, and I have no desire for my life to hit rock bottom on the floor of a cattle car so you can anoint yourself the prophet of change.

[Juicy_Bellows]

8. There is a lot of whatifbutwhenmaybe in there.

I can appreciate their sentiment but it's another appeal to fear and guilt shame if you somehow cant/won't vote for either of them.

[HarmonyRockets]

13. So you don't think that there should be any shame or guilt

for those that do nothing to stop Trump from becoming president on election day (particularly in swing states)?

[Live and Learn]

24. Do you really think shaming and guilting work? nt

[swhisper1]

54. trump cannot win

[anigbrowl]

111. Yet another poster who mistakes assertion for argument

Trump orbably won't win, but he could. The assumption that such an outcome would be impossible is childishly naive.

[swhisper1]

113. agree to disagree

[BlueStater]

82. If Hillary Clinton is such an unappealing candidate...

...that she can't enough people to vote for her in a general election, than that will solely be the fault of her and her supporters who made her the Democratic nominee.

[swhisper1]

114. not solely, the election process is at fault here, giving us so few choices, and those

choices being made by corp owned partys and super delegates. Only Trump has been able to break through the walls with shock value alone. The election process stinks and is NOT voter friendly

[TheFarseer]

16. Hillary is the one who represents the privileged

Millionaires who support gay marriage are her core constituency. How long do you expect us to vote on social issues when our jobs are disappearing, I can't afford to go see a doctor and we can't send our kids to college?

[potone]

33. This is the crux of the problem.

Our economy has become so skewed toward the wealthy that many people are just barely hanging on. I don't think Hillary really understands this. She lives in a world of the uber wealthy and powerful.

Trump is not the answer, but he taps into that economic fear by scapegoating illegal immigrants as the source of our economic woes.

I am so frightened at the thought that he could win that I will vote for Hillary. But I live in what is probably going to be a swing state. If I didn't I would write in Bernie or vote for Jill Stein.

I have seen many presidential elections, but never one with such a dismal choice of candidates. I understand why some Bernie supporters cannot face the thought of voting for Hillary. She was crammed down our throats from the beginning, and her pandering to voters by repeatedly changing her positions does not inspire any confidence or respect.

She will be good, for the most part, on social issues, but not on economic, foreign policy or environmental issues.

I think we are going to be in for a long four years, no matter what.

[TheFarseer]

73. I live in Nebraska

and the Republicans here have already convinced themselves that Trump is going to be just the president we need. Right now, I just don't see myself voting for either Trump or Hill. I feel free to vote for whoever since this is not a swing state.

[choie]

26. You're right..

I'm privileged to live in a state that will elect Clinton overwhelmingly, so I can write in Bernie Sanders and not compromise my values..

[swhisper1]

42. me too. wouldnt it be a scream if he gets enough write-ins'''nah, cant happen, right?

[choie]

43. wow you must really think that

Clinton is unpopular if you're worrying about that scenario..

[swhisper1]

46. I'm a fatalist, what will be was meant to be. I am worry free. worry paralyses progress

[yourout]

29. I prefer to call it a moral imperative.

[Lil Missy]

34. They're not worth our time. n/t

[peace13]

36. Projection .....it's not just for movie theaters.

Hillary sets a bad example because her best defense is projection. It's not useful out here. The woman who represents the privileged does not get to point her finger at anyone. Even if every Bernie voter voted for Hill the poorest among us, the unprivileged, would not revive even a nod from the woman. News flash for the author, life is gonna get a lot harder for 99 percent of the people and the people who are picking up the pieces for those in need will still be doing it. Regardless of who they do or do not vote for.

[elljay]

39. I understand the sentiment

It is like dealing with an addicted loved one. You comfort, you help, then you start covering for him, then paying debts, and it goes on and on and on. At some point, you have to just step away and either he will hit bottom and decide to reform, or not. As a progressive, with every presidential election I have voted to enable the addiction. Obama better than Romney or McCain, Kerry better than Bush and so on. When the Republicans won, we moved far to the right. When the Democrats won, we still moved to the right. People make the decision about when to cut off the addict at different times. There are very many principled progressives who have reached that point already and just cannot morally vote once again to enable the addiction. You may not agree with them, but they are not doing this to screw you or the country. They truly believe they are doing this to end the destructive moving to the right so we can get back on track. They are unlikely to affect the results this time but if they do, it is a sign that the Democratic Party has finally alienated so much of its base that they deserve to lose. I live in California so I have no concerns that my state will vote for Trump. At the moment I intend to hold my nose and vote for Hillary as the least conservative candidate but I will not tolerate any further pandering to the right wing. If she veers to the right I will switch to Jill Stein. I am not alone.

[swhisper1]

44. lesser of two evils no longer works for me

[elljay]

64. My point exactly

There comes a point where you have to take a stand. I'm really struggling with this because I just don't want to support the Third Way any more. However, the SCOTUS is in play. I was in law school when Scalia was appointed and I was just horrified. Then he got worse over the years. By padding the courts with extremists, the Republicans are able to destroy each and every progressive law passed as well as our Constitutional rights. The next president has between 1-3 appointments which will affect us for decades. Whatever our feelings about Bill Clinton, he did appoint RBG to the Court. Even if not who I would pick, Hillary's appointments would clearly be an improvement over the Scalia-types Trump would pick.

[swhisper1]

66. wouldnt we be able to block those tho? Its been done and we will have the senate

Hillarys would be corp and bank friendly, so its a toss up and wont make me vote for either

[Demsrule86]

84. the president choose court nominees and while the Gop has block one guy

we won't be able to for four years...seriously you people have no understanding of what we face...and there is a very good chance if Hillary loses, we will not get the senate...Bush was president and we had the Senate...got Alito and Roberts...both who will overturn Roe V Wade with but one more vote...you want money out of politics...how likely is that if we lose the courts? Bernie and his supporters have shown their contempt for women's issues...all along and that they have no understanding of the hell on earth a Trump presidency would cause. I have no regard for Bernie or those who continue to support him. I want nothing to do with anything that he proposes...thus, his revolution will be kind of one sided...most women and people of color have no interest in what he is peddling.

[elljay]

91. Let's not go overboard with theninsults

Being a woman myself, a Bernie supporter, and living in a diverse area in which very many women and minorities supported Bernie, I find your slurs unnecessary and inappropriate. We don't have contempt for women and minorities; we happen to be progressives who don't support a moderate/conservative candidate while older women and older African Americans did support the conservative candidate. It is their right to be more conservative and ours to be more progressive. The racist/sexist slurs are not correct and only confirm opinions that the Democratic Party has lost its path as it has drifted to the right.

[elljay]

92. Looking at the stats

98 Senators, including all 47 Dems, voted for Scalia. For the Alito nomination, Dems tried to filibuster but couldn't get the support of conservative democratic senators. In the confirmation vote, 55-42, 4 Dems votes for Alito. Thomas was confirmed 52-48 with 11 Dems supporting him. Roberts was confirmed 78-22 with 23 Democrats' support, including Russ Feingold, Ron Widen, Carl Levin and Pat Leahy. If we couldn't stop even Thomas, Mr Long Dong Silver, then there is no way we can stop all Trump appointees, especially with so many conservative Democratic senators.

[chervilant]

78. Thank you for this eloquent post.

I hope you know that someone out here in the ether thinks this should be an OP. However, it would put you at risk to post it (IMHO).

[Dems to Win]

40. What about the people who'll be hurt by Hillary's war on Iran?

Or maybe war with Russia? PNAC's Robert Kagan is a big Hillary supporter, and calls her a neo-con.

It's really not crystal clear to me whether a vote for Trump or Hillary will minimize the resultant human suffering. Trump at least has sense enough to call the Iraq War a huge mistake and says we would be better off if we'd invested that money in infrastructure at home.

Trump has also called the Saudis fat cows, and says we shouldn't be defending them. Hillary has accepted millions from the Saudis for her Foundation, and can be expected to be as close buddies with them as W was. As a feminist, it troubles me to see the US have such a close relationship with a cruel misogynistic, homophobic regime.

So many people act as if the choice is obvious. But I can see reasons why not to vote for Hillary, and of course there are myriad reasons not to vote for Trump. A firm, principled stance for neither Trump nor Clinton can be the reasonable choice when faced with 2 bad options.

It's not all about temper tantrums.

[swhisper1]

55. thank you

[swhisper1]

41. I dont agree. That appointment can be blocked by dems. If they dont, the whole party is a farce

[Warren DeMontague]

45. is this today's talking point?

It's not a very good one.

[swhisper1]

48. you are right, it is like everyone is running out of gas with absolutely nothing to say

I hope it is temporary, but I fear the good writers have all left, only the boring left to pat each others backs and talk about the weather, pretty soon it will be pics of grandchildren and cats, just another facebook

[azurnoir]

52. The author of this piece calls herself a digital story teller and she told a good story -digitally

Keiko Zoll is a digital storyteller, founder and editor-in-chief for The Infertility Voice™, mom, wife, and maker of amazing pancakes. She is a teeny bit obsessed with fonts and Starbucks Cold Brew. She geeks out in the greater Boston area with her husband, toddler son, and two cats.

https://www.romper.com/authors/keiko-zoll-1419

[jalan48]

56. If this is so important why won't the Democratic Party champion Bernie's ideas?

It seems like that would solve the problem.

[swhisper1]

61. corps wont allow bernies ideas

[anigbrowl]

118. Because many of them are flawed or poorly thought out

Bernie Sanders has great ideas, but so what? I have great ideas, do you want me as President? Miss World contestants have great ideas, every single one of them I have ever heard claims to be a an ardest supporter of world peace. So if we just elect beauty queen contestants to positions of power, all war and suffering will end overnight, right?

Ideas are cheap, in fact they're virtually free. But a President's job is to execute, not philosophize. Hillary Clinton has offered a whole lot of detailed plans on how she would like to run the government, with lots of specifics about things like budget allocation for specific regulatory agencies and so on. Many of these proposals are rather boring but they do reflect an excellent understanding of how the government actually functions. Bernie Sanders has many exciting proposals but little detail on how he expects to go about implementing them, and when I've asked people here for insight over the months of this primary campaign I get stupid non-answers like 'he will hire some experts to work out the details,' which is a long way to say 'no clue.'

[drm604]

57. As someone who supported Bernie just let me say that I agree with you 100%.

But there seems to be no convincing some people.

Politics often consists of compromise and, like so much in the real world, if often consists of choosing the lesser evil. Not that Hillary is evil, mind you, but even if someone does consider her evil, it should be obvious to anyone on the left that Trump is a much greater evil by magnitudes.

[Attorney in Texas]

63. This boogieman tactic might work in Ohio or Florida, but in California or Texas (and 40something

other states) voting for Jill Stein at the top of the ticket and Democrats down ballot won't "elect Trump."

I'll vote Democrat down-ballot but I'll decide how I'll vote/contribute/campaign at the top of the ticket based on the platform, the VP choice, the party rules reform, and the role of progressives at the convention.

The boogieman tactic shouldn't frighten anyone outside of a couple of swing states into violating his or her conscience by voting for someone who doesn't share our values. Party unity is fine and commendable in Ohio and Florida, but it is not necessary to sacrifice one's conscience in the other 48 states.

[swhisper1]

67. very realistic post, thanx

[One Black Sheep]

65. There is nothing wrong with having the privilege to vote, it is a good thing

and everyone should exercise that privilege.

[swhisper1]

68. I wish they all could vote, it is not the case. Only mail-in hides the color of your skin

and elderly won't have to wait in line for hours, Our voting system sucks big time

[One Black Sheep]

69. "Our voting system sucks big time"

Agreed, it does. Many improvements could be done.

[Pastiche423]

71. I will not be shamed or guilted in to voting for HER

After 2008, I finally gave myself permission to only vote for someone that mirrored my views. No more lesser of two evils ever again!

And this...
"Choosing not to vote at all because your candidate didn't make the ticket is a short-sighted political temper tantrum that does nothing to help anyone or advance any political cause you supported."

Is nothing but crap.

[OnDoutside]

75. Bernie would be proud of you ! He'll never support her either.

[leftofcool]

76. Not to worry. Sanders is unlikely to support her either.

[99Forever]

72. Who I choose to vote for is a RIGHT, not a "privilege."

Save your guilt trip for someone who cares about bullshit.

[Demsrule86]

87. Bye...have a nice life ...one day.

[SDJay]

93. Time To Adjust the Message

I understand why things would get nasty during a tough primary battle - they always do. That's just the nature of things when people are committed to their candidate.

That said, just over the past couple of days on this here Webby site I've seen the following more than once:

If you don't vote for HRC, you are a/n:

Asshole bathing in white privilege
Helping Drumpf win
Racist
Misogynist
Spoiled millennial puke

"Vote for HRC or you are a (insert awful insult)" is not going to bring people together. That's what should be happening now. Not only because we all need to do what's necessary to keep that orange pig away from a position where he can literally end the world but because before long the 'soft middle' is going to start paying more attention. If they see this kind of crap from the winning side of the primary, it's going to be a turn-off.

Time to be positive. If folks who supported Bernie (and I was one of them) want to keep throwing bombs, let them and rise above it. Those messages will die down. The microscope at this point in general is on the primary winner and the message that's being put out by her, her staff and for some people her supporters.

[azurnoir]

104. seeing as how voting is a privilege any vote for anyone is a privileged vote

[democrattotheend]

117. Voting is not a privilege. It's a right.

And I am sure that Bernie would be the first person to agree with that.

[azurnoir]

119. No it is a privilege just ask anyone convicted of a crime who has already served their sentence

[democrattotheend]

121. I would argue that their rights are violated

It's a remnant of the Jim Crow era, most prevalent in Southern States as a way of minimizing black voting now that they can't outright eliminate it.

[Trajan]

105. These pubic whippings ...

Are unsavory ... They are lamentable ...

I may or may not vote for Hillary ... Haven't made up my mind yet ...

Yet, when I read crap like this ... I guess the kindergarten teacher in you thought the paddle would be a good idea ... Au Contraire, mon frere ...

I place you on ignore, and go about deciding on my own how to vote, without bothering with your concerns or opinions ...

See how that works? ... it's a beautiful thing ...

[democrattotheend]

116. I think this article is partially right

I think this applies to those who live in swing states and refuse to vote for Hillary. For people who live in solidly red or solidly blue states, I don't think casting a protest vote reflects privilege, because those of us who live in non-swing states know that how we vote will have no impact on whether or not Trump becomes president.

I plan to vote for Hillary but if I disliked her as much as some Bernie supporters do, I probably wouldn't, because if she is struggling to win my state she is not winning the election. Period.