2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumPlease STOP TELLING ME I'll Vote for Hillary Clinton Because I'M A CHICK.
Honestly, I never thought I'd have to write this diary, but since two highly-recommended diaries of late opined on this, I really have to write a rebuttal. I'm in my mid-forties and I have been a registered Democrat for 28 years. I am a registered Democrat now, even though I recently moved from the swing state of Colorado to the Republican stronghold of Wisconsin. It bums me right the fuck out, but whatever. I would rather chew off my own two hands than vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2016, and (if Bernie Sanders is not the Democratic nominee) I plan to either write in his name or leave the POTUS box blank. I haven't yet decided, but I've got a year and a half to figure it out. I will, however, vote down-ticket for the Democrats I believe in and support, in either Colorado or Wisconsin. I'm not sure where I'll be living in November 2016, but my money is on Colorado. (Long story.) I have a very long history of how I feel about Hillary Clinton, so feel free to follow me over the orange squiggle to learn about it.
~snip~
It was 1992 when I first heard about Hillary Rodham Clinton and, oh my, how much I loved her! She said this, and I thought she was all that and a bag 'o chips! OH!!!!! YES YES YES YES YES!!!!! This was MY woman, and MY mentor, and MY advocate! So I followed her journey. I followed her and followed her and followed her. I was a little weirded about after she stayed with her husband following the Monica Lewinsky scandal, but whatever. Who really knows what goes on in a marriage, right? I gave her the benefit of the doubt. But then she started campaigning for the senate seat in New York, and I was perplexed by that. Uh ... why wouldn't she campaign for an open senate seat in Arkansas?! HRC isn't from New York, after all, so why would she even do that? And then Hillary Clinton became a senator from the great state of New York, which still struck me as strange, but what struck me as even stranger were her votes when she was a member of the United States Senate. HRC was a definite advocate for women and children, sure, but her votes regarding war and Homeland Security, frankly, sucked balls. Who is this woman? Who is this woman, that I used to consider my mentor?! I didn't know. I didn't know anymore, and I thought that HRC sold herself out to the Powers That Be in order to become Senator Clinton. That fucking infuriated me.
So when I see a diary by kos himself, saying:
Meanwhile, it is difficult for him (Bernie Sanders) to make inroads among women who are understandably excited about finally getting a woman president.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/07/1400079/-Bernie-Sanders-momentum-is-Hillary-Clinton-s-fault
... and then I see a diary a few days later, stating:
If Secretary Clinton is elected president of the United States, it would show for once and for all that women are equal in qualifications and gravitas. I could tell my six-year-old granddaughter, “See? You too can grow up to be president.”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/13/1401728/--Markos-Indisputably-Gets-It
My response is this: I do not want Sarah Palin or Carly Fiorina or Michele Bachmann or Ann Coulter to be elected into the office of President of the United States. I am not so blind as you make me out to be; I will not vote for a woman POTUS just because she happens to be a woman. Women are not monolith, and neither are minority voters. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a Third Way advocate. She is a triangulator. She is a neoliberal. I do not want any of those people running the American government anymore; they have ruined the US standing in the world, and they have made it monumentally more difficult to survive day-to-day. None of these things (either alone or taken together) will make me vote for her in the Democratic primary, or the 2016 general election.
None. Not because she's a woman, and not for any other reason.
cont'
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/15/1402395/-Please-stop-telling-me-I-ll-vote-for-Hillary-Clinton-because-I-m-a-chick
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Yes.
Response to LWolf (Reply #1)
George II This message was self-deleted by its author.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)Or haven't you seen her donor sheet?
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)The people that are her donors list are from New York,
most gave less that 100, they are not bank owners or players
on Wall St, they are employees of banks making less 30,000.
Sorry, Hillary is not corporate of American, Hillary is her own person
always has been.
Sanders is controlled left wing ideologues that don't care about the
country. They are interested illogical purity: I cannot indulge this
when the GOP people are threating War with Iran
The American people want Hillary, she is a loyal Dem: She will
sign anything the Dem's can get enough votes for.
Sanders people are shooting the Dem's chances in the foot
d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)according to Mother Jones. She raised $8 million from Joe Six Pack (not the Fixed News Correspondent). The rest came from...you guessed it...CORPORATIONS!!! There is a reason why she started a PAC.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/hillary-clinton-fundraising-bundlers-lobbyists
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)d_legendary1
(2,586 posts)They're the ones making the most contributions.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Hillary is someone who is easy to admire, why would the Dudes
on Wall St be any different from the rest of American, money or
no money.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)and they sent me an e-mail with "Let's send a woman to the White House!" Screw that! I Unsubscribed and when they wanted to know why I told them that they insult my intelligence if they think I'm going to vote someone based upon their gender.
ETA: That "baking cookies" comment made my blood boil and I say that as a life-long feminist and career woman. NO at-home or away-from-home work should be denigrated and it only serves to cause divisions among women.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)and left a strongly worded explanation why. If we are reduced to voting for a candidate simply because she's a woman, we have not made one damn bit of progress. It is troubling that gender would ever be the deciding factor.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)for this country who has shown they have the intelligence, the good judgement, the foresight and the insight to make the RIGHT decisions at the RIGHT time for this country. I do not want leaders who get it WRONG on major issues and who end up, after it is too tragically late, having to apologize and admit they were wrong as if that is going to in any way undo the damage done by wrong decisions.
Too often Hillary has been wrong, too often she seems to change her mind on major issues, to the point where I have no clue who she really is or what SHE thinks about anything.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)Here it is, in its entirety:
We elect pro-choice Democratic women to office.
Source: http://www.emilyslist.org/pages/entry/our-mission
The fact that Emily's List supports Hillary Clinton should surprise exactly zero people. She is the only presidential candidate that is (1) pro-choice, (2) Democratic, and (3) a woman.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)from their inception, as a matter of fact. I just don't agree that any organization, regardless of how well intended, should expect people to vote for a candidate based on gender. Now, if they were to re-state their purpose as electing "pro-choice candidates," (without regard to gender) I would be happy to a supporter.
Further, given my above premise, I am not surprised at all by their endorsement. However, Bernie Sanders is also (1) pro-choice, (2) running on the Democratic Party ticket as sanctioned by the DNC and (3) gender should play no part.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)She's always sruck me as way too smug, and way too conniving.
Warpy
(114,359 posts)that women aren't stupid enough to vote for anything with a vagina just because it has a vagina. We weren't suckered by Palin on the ticket and we won't be suckered by any other woman who we know will vote against our interests.
I don't agree with the OP in that if we're stuck with Clinton on the ticket, I'll vote for her. She would be light years ahead of any damned Republican on social issues, even if she would be remarkably like one in other areas of governance. I'll take what I can get and if that's keeping the government from crawling up my box, so be it.
So far, Sanders has my primary vote because he's the only one who isn't talking shite. My vote in the general will go to the Democrat on the ticket unless some antichoice pious bigot manages to get the nod.
Stevepol
(4,234 posts)would have voted for Elizabeth Warren in a nanosecond if she had decided to run for prez.
Hillary is a very politically gifted woman, but she's a little too tilted toward war and Wall Street for my taste. As Bernie might say, "In my view, Hillary is no Elizabeth Warren."
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Are nutjobs. Hillary is not.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)They are strong women like Hillary. Unfortunately, a little too much like Hillary.
I'm very much in favor of women in politics, and as heads of governments...because women can bring things to the table that men often don't, and we need them, and their compassion and wisdom. But women who try too much to act like men (or are too power hungry) are not bringing the good things to the table. They are not the kind of women I want to see leading this country.
I'd like to see a woman who understands that staying home to raise kids (if she wants that) and bake cookies is a good and honest choice and not a 'weakness'. I'd like to see a woman with a lot of compassion for all people as POTUS. One of the things I don't like about Hillary is the way she talks with "power and bluster" like she thinks she needs to talk like a tough man to get anywhere. Obama is my favorite POTUS because he doesn't talk using power and bluster. He talks with intelligence and compassion, and introspect and thoughtfulness; and treats everyone with respect. And that's what I want to see in a woman POTUS too. Women like Warren have quiet strength.
You don't have to sound tough to be tough. Quiet strength is highly underrated.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)This isn't my argument, it's the op's.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)
My post was meant for the OP more than you, but I'm glad you cleared up my confusion on your post.
Joe Chi Minh
(15,229 posts)no male politician would have dared to say, she proclaimed with the righteous fervour of a fascist despot-numbskull. The men, particularly the crypto-fascist Tory backwoodsmen, such as run the Government today, having brought about the last war with their own fascist leanings, finally saw their patience rewarded. An ever so lightly deranged demagogue who would make the perfect puppet for the 1-10%, appealing to many politically naive and unsophisticated people; although she never had a majority of the votes of the electorate. Then there was the novelty of the prospect of the first UK woman MP, which they played for all they were worth.
So perfect was she for the job they had lined up for her, that she soon re-introduced mass homelessness, after Les Trente Glorieuses, as the French called the first three, glorious post-war decades, in which the Socialists had created the welfare-state and the then One Nation Tories contributed to sustaining it. Tory PM, McMillan, had even said that privatising the public utilities was selling the family silver.
The Baroness Lady Cardboard believed all the most ludicrously flattering twaddle peddled about her by the hacks in the employ of the Rogues' Gallery of British press barons, such as Murdoch, aka the Dirty Digger in Private Eye, Conrad Black and Cap'n Bob Maxwell. She even posed as a kind pf reincarnation of Churchill - despite having refused to interrupt her university studies to help with the war effort, while so many of her age at the Oxbridge colleges and other universities put their careers on hold to do so.
Typical of the endlessly mendacious propaganda of the Tories was their trumpeted lie that she had wrung a large rebate of the UK's contribution to the Common Market from the beaten and cowed Common Market leaders; one of whom, however, said that they finally agreed on some rebate, as she was nearly in tears and they felt sorry for her! I'm not sure I entirely buy such an scenario among hard-nosed politicians, but I suspect it is substantially true. It's all together likely that an MEP would make up the story. What ever she managed to extract from them was going to be lauded to the heavens by Messrs Murdoch, Maxwell, Black et al.
What Reagan did for the US, she did for the UK. Nuff said?
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)I'm not saying she was smart...she was like a lot of conservatives who like to rule with an iron thumb, whether they know how to rule or not. She acted "tough" like some men do...like Scott Walker does.
I'm not using strong or tough in a good way here. There is a difference between real strength and strong or tough acting. Blustery. Trump thinks he's strong but he's not. He's a wimp and a blustering fool.
Joe Chi Minh
(15,229 posts)Baroness cardboard being a puppet.
still_one
(98,883 posts)is in her critical thinking skills
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Not an accusation or comparison against Hillary.
still_one
(98,883 posts)or religion are not where progressive thinkers come from.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)still_one
(98,883 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)it's a Kos piece, made in response to other Kos journals that did presume exactly that. So apparently it's not preaching to the choir.
Do you want to try for a third complaint?
still_one
(98,883 posts)on the extreme right side of the political spectrum
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)is in her critical thinking skills
You've now changed your argument twice.
still_one
(98,883 posts)involved in a couple other subthreads in this main thread, so I got off track. Sorry about that.
Anyway, I'll repeat what I edited, I am mystified that Palin, Coulter, etc. were used as examples since they are on the most extreme side of the political spectrum, to demonstrate why the gender voting argument is bogus. That is a pretty weak argument, especially if that implies that Hillary is as extreme
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)They are women, and the author's point is that "I'm not going to vote for someone becuase htye are a woman." It's not "preaching to the choir, because it's a response to two - and probably more - other entries o ndaily Kos that presume Clinton cinches the woman vote because she is a woman.
It has nothing to do with their relative positions.
still_one
(98,883 posts)Elmer S. E. Dump
(5,751 posts)Some women are just so enamored with Hillary, the person, AND the woman, that they are like the people that watch Fux Snooze all day - self-brainwashed.
I said SOME!!!!!! Not ALL!!!!!
lark
(25,841 posts)It's saying she'd rather have a Repug president than Hillary. That's just loony tunes IMO and I hope she doesn't get what she's asking for, as too many people would get seriously hurt.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)us we should believe Bush and invade Iraq? Just how many dead American troops and innocent Iraqi's would it take to convince you to vote for someone else?
still_one
(98,883 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that you favor the billionaires over the people. Sooner or later the people are going to kick the billionaires out on their butts.
still_one
(98,883 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The billionaires are supporting HRC for a reason, and it sure as hell isn't that she will do something about poverty or our vets or our seniors. Do you even know what quid pro quo means?
Divernan
(15,480 posts)I agree with this comment following an article in Daily Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/15/1402366/-A-comment-on-a-Bernie-Sanders-post-grabbed-me-despite-all-my-cynicism#
It's all about money when a candidate doesn't stand for anything but a less sexist oligarchy.
Hillary: Making sure women get a bigger piece of the middle-class pie that her neoliberal, DLC, pro-Wall Street, pro-Pentagon, pro-TPP, Republican-lite economic policies are designed to shrink.
As a lifelong Democrat, progressive Democrat, feminist and an elected female official in my own local government, I am actively working for 2 female candidates - one for a county office, and one for U.S. Congress - both facing primary challenges from old, machine-style male Democrats. I'm NOT supporting them because they are female, but because they are hands down the best candidates - we're talking not only demonstrated intelligence & competence, but personal integrity. Those same characteristics are what I find in Bernie Sanders. Added to those, he does now and always has supported progressive policies. He is a perfect candidate, as far as I am concerned.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The GOP thanks you.
randys1
(16,286 posts)but wont), they will take the WH if we are not careful.
artislife
(9,497 posts)The real throwing away the vote is voting for the lesser of two evils because one's views are never taken into account in the final tally. How can they be, there is no place to register that the vote was half hearted.
Money and influence will always trump the powerless.
Unless we make a stand.
I got made last election when people said the system needed to crash, because that would be the only way to change it. Well, we have Bernie, but if he doesn't make it, perhaps a good breaking is in order
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Not voting isn't as bad as voting GOP, it's actually exactly half as bad. You can't be neutral on a moving train.
"Making a stand" by throwing the election to the GOP and letting them destroy the country is a really bad plan. Maybe you have the luxury of not needing healthcare or SS, but a lot of people don't.
thesquanderer
(12,879 posts)if for no other reason that the prospect of a Republican president choosing another Supreme Court justice or two.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)still_one
(98,883 posts)RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)When you have a one-party political system like we have (with two blocs, the extremist bloc (Republicans) and the conservative bloc (Democrats)), and it has successfully convinced the overwhelming majority of voters that only its candidates have any business being in public office, knowingly voting for the candidate from the conservative bloc, who you really don't want in the particular office, because you believe that the candidate from the extremist bloc would be worse, is just playing a rigged game.
The argument you make is an old one, and, if it is successful, it accomplishes only one thing: advancing even further the exclusive control of the country's political system by this one-party corporate-owned monolith.
If we value our fundamental voting rights as citizens, it may be necessary, if a voter finds neither candidate for an office palatable, to simply vote for someone else. The vote is the most essential right of the citizens of a representative democracy, and your argument dilutes it, makes citizens pawns of the one-party system which seldom acts on their behalf.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)They tried your way in 2000. Turned out very badly. Time to join the good guys. Vote for Dems, or you're implicitly helping the GOP ruin the country.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)'Vote for Dems, or you're implicitly helping the GOP ruin the country.' If you don't pre-commit to hand over your vote to Democratic candidates, whoever they may be, you're culpable as a party to the ruination of the country?
Your perspective is part of the problem, which is much bigger than the fact that the GOP is dedicated to privatizing the federal government so that its functions are available for sale to the highest bidders. The Democratic wing is also deeply immersed in that initiative.
Your way never, every allows for substantial change in the process of governance of our country, since each wing is deeply committed to gaining and maintaining their grasp on political power. Little by little, regardless of which wing has the temporary advantage, all other possible means of electing candidates to political office are cut off.
Oh - BTW, I don't know if you were around in 1992, but Bill Clinton became president because of the presence of a kook who siphoned off votes from the GOP. It can go both ways. And you say 'They tried your way in 2000.' I assume you mean the handful of votes that Ralph Nader received as a candidate for President. Did that really cost Al Gore the presidency? If it did, and it is highly unlikely that it is so, then he didn't merit the office on the basis of support of the American people. If you say our political system can't handle votes for anyone other than the Democratic or Republican candidates for political office, than you have proven my point. We no longer have a representative democracy. We have a one-party (two, if you must cling to the notion) hegemony that owns the American government and sells it off to the highest bidders. In that case, there is only one option if you really want to be a 'good guy,' and that is to vote only for candidates you are comfortable sending to particular offices. Otherwise, you are explicitly helping a bribery racket utterly devour the country.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It's not the pre-commitment, it's the actual not voting for Dems that's the problem. If you pre-commit to not vote for a Dem, but then change your mind, that's fine.
And you actually do have your chance for substantial change, right now. Elect Bernie. But if he doesn't win the Dem nominee, there's no way he wins the GE. So if he loses the primary, chalk it up to better luck, and get on with the business of getting a Dem into the White House, because it's that or a Republican.
I'm aware of what happened in 1992. In that case the 3rd party kook helped out Dems, that was good. In 2000 the kook helped out the GOP. That was bad. If we could find a 3rd party kook to siphon off votes from the GOP this time around, that would be great. Trump would work out nicely.
840high
(17,196 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)...instead of building and working hard to prepare well in advance, years in advance for alternative candidates? Right, you are making a stand alright, and it's not for voting for the lesser of two evils. Your stand has something else written all over it.
For all the Bernie lovers that would not vote for Hillary if she is the Dem nominee, why didn't you bolster and work to build up the independent party years ago? Why is that right before the elections you are willing to play with the possibility of putting a Republican in the WH. You have known for years that Hillary was going to run...so what's with the last minute petulance
Btw this post is not just in direct response, but also to the OP
artislife
(9,497 posts)A dem is not the same dem in every election every county
Maybe we are trying to get the Dinos out and return the party to the progressives.
cstanleytech
(28,164 posts)When it comes down to any election you have to choose which of the candidates that are running do you think will do the best job if its Bernie or Hillary (would have prefered Warren but *shrug*) in 2016 great because I wouldnt trust any of the Republican running as far as I could throw them.
London Lover Man
(371 posts)She isn't getting my vote in the primary, and Bernie will.
At the end, Bernie will emerge victorious - because by then, 90% of the people will have understood and support Bernie's issues.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Hillary will win the primary -- by then 137% of the 19% of will end up joining the other 29%, which along with the 32% will give her a big win.
At that point, hopefully you'll vote for her in the general election, rather than help toss the election to the GOP out of spite.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)I doubt that will be Hillary. But if she can get 137% of the 19%, and add that to the other 29% along with the other 32% to give her a big win, she obviously doesn't need my vote.
I'm not so good at math so I don't understand any of your numbers, but tell me if she is destined to have a big win how will my one vote toss the election to the GOP?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)That will be close, and we need every vote we can get. Glad we can count on yours.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)But Hillary will excite a part of the electorate if she makes it to the general, problem is she will excite the Republicans and give the unaffiliated no reason to vote. Hillary can't win in the general election no matter who the Republican candidate is.
Bernie on the other hand will excite the Democrats and the unaffiliated causing the Democrats to retake the House and the Senate.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)This kind of stuff still surprises me, although it shouldn't. The effective alliance between the GOP and the far left is something I've become pretty familiar with.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Republicans are even worse than the Democrats.
I'm unaffiliated and will from now until I die only vote for the candidate I think is best for the Country.
If it looks like Bernie needs my vote in the primaries I will register again as a Democrat then back to unaffiliated for the general.
Votes are too valuable to give away just because of a letter, and it doesn't matter if it is a D or an R. Please consider voting for what is best for your Country, not just your party.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)As Howard Zinn said, you can't be neutral on a moving train. Especially given how dangerous the GOP is.
The only consolation is that after Hillary wins the primary, all the GOP-liters from the far left will be off of DU.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Not voting for a Dem is the same as a half vote for the GOP? First there is no such thing as a half vote, and second the only way to vote for the GOP is to actually vote for the GOP. Not voting for a Dem is just that, not voting for someone, the only way someone gets your vote is to actually vote for them.
I have no idea what Howard Zinn meant, maybe you could explain it to me. On second thought never mind, it already confuses me enough.
GOP-liters from the far left? Do you even know what it means to be far left? Never mind, I already know the answer. But I agree it would be a good thing for all of those non-existent entities to be gone from DU. Now if we could just do something about all of these conservatives hanging out and posting on a liberal web site!
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The difference between a Dem vote and a no-vote is exactly half the difference between a Dem vote and a GOP vote.
A GOP vote versus a Dem vote is a net two votes for the GOP (-1 for the Dem and +1 for the GOP).
A no-vote versus a Dem vote is a net one vote for the GOP (-1 for the Dem and 0 for the GOP).
One is equal to one-half of two.
― Howard Zinn, You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train: A Personal History of Our Times
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)I was planning to vote for either a Democrat or a Republican. I have voted for neither for about 20 years in the case of Democrats and 30 years in the case of Republicans. I may vote for the Democratic candidate, which is often the best choice, but will do it on a third party line, never the Democratic line.
I did know what Zinn meant, it just didn't apply to me. Again with the trains, you have to assume I'm on Hillary's train, I am not and haven't been for this election cycle. I will admit I was on her train in '08 but she was far from my first choice which didn't run. But my train does appear to be coming at Hillary's train head on, which one will be derailed?
You have to get out of the 2 parties box you are in, the largest and fastest growing demographic is the unaffiliated and/or third party one, there is a reason for that. If you need help with that reason answer this post.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)A vote for the GOP is bad, and a no-vote is half as bad. The train is moving, and unless you're on the side of the people trying to stop the GOP from destroying the country, you are complicit.
It's mostly a bourgeois/entitlement thing -- people who's healthcare or SS is at stake don't have the luxury of letting the GOP wrecking ball run wild so they can pat themselves on the back for their "protest vote".
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)I'm 64 and on SS, will be on Medicare before the year is out so I do have that to lose. But if that is all I worried about I would be acting selfish and short sighted. There are bigger things to think about. I have grandchildren that are starting to be of military age, and don't want a Senator, or President, that will vote for or advocate for a war purely for political reasons. Wars are never won and are too costly in personal and economic terms. If someone will vote for a war for political reasons it stands to reason that they would do just about anything for political reasons. You can support the war candidate if you like, that one of the nice things about living in America people can't tell you how you must vote, although many think they can.
Again with the train, you assume that Hillary is inevitable, she isn't. You give the impression you think people have to vote for a Republican or a Democrat, you don't, there are many other choices, you should get a sample ballot and study up on the candidates before you vote. You sound like one of those people that votes against a candidate instead of for a candidate, and I used to be one but now know it is a wasted vote. The best vote is to vote for the best candidate possible for the Country and yes if you want to be selfish for yourself, it's the only way the best candidate can win. We certainly need to up the quality of candidates for President, Bernie does that, Hillary is status quo, and we don't even need to mention the Republican side of the ballot.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)So you're right. Sitting out the GE (or voting third party or write-in or whatever) for some ideological purity crusade is worse than just selling seniors down the river. It's selling the entire nation and its future down the river.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)You're right the GOP is wrong on every, or at least most, issues, so just keep voting for your party and pretend all is well.
One small hint, which party was the last to place SS on the bargaining table?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I've never found sticking my head in the sand and ignoring reality to be an appealing or useful strategy.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)If you can't at least look outside the box there is no sense in continuing the conversation.
I didn't think you would answer the question. So much for being the great defender of SS and Medicare.
lark
(25,841 posts)Why would you vote for a party that is fundamentally aligned to hurt you? Everyone who is not part of the 1%, who isn't old white and conservative is in the GOP's crosshairs. They are determined to destroy our education and economy to take us back to the middle ages, and the 1% will be the Lords. There will be little/no middle class. Women will get no choice in their reproduction, there will be no environmental regulations on business and dirty skies and water will be everywhere. Oh yeah, we'll also be in a major war with Iran. If you are willing to live with that, you are part of the problem.
I'm with you in hoping Bernie wins, he is the better candidate. However, I will not eat my own foot and vote Repug or not vote at all (proxy Repug vote) in the general.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)are responding to before replying and you would know I don't vote for Republicans. It's right there in the first sentence.
still_one
(98,883 posts)
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)
tymorial
(3,433 posts)The "if you don't vote for Hillary you are a misogynist" has already started. 2banon responded with this which I thought was very well stated:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=442695
What you describe is what I refer to as Identity Politics. It's not really about Ideology..
in the sense of Left vs Right or Left Progressive vs Neo-Liberalism (as examples of political ideology distinctions) .
Gender and Race is the common hook underpinning the use of Identity Politics (the actual spectrum is wider and broader of course which includes a myriad of variations to the theme such as religion, etc.) which to me is an extremely flawed criteria to base one's political allegiance, sans any genuine discerning of their political and philosophical point of view or their actual legislative record supporting (say in this case), women's issues of concern including decisions of war and peace.
It would be a kin to A.A.'s voting for Clarence Thomas for President based on his race. Dianne Feinstein, a woman in my mind betrayed women all over the world when she voted for Shock and Awe based on obviously specious claims of self defense vis a vis WMD. Yes, of course I'm pleased she defends women's right to choose. But our issues of concern goes far beyond that. She stops short and often is working against our economic needs.
Using Identity Politics in this campaign as a reason d'etre I find highly insulting and offensive. It also speaks to a certain level of stupidity of those engaged in it, imo.
On your point suggesting that we're seeing a lot of this, I agree completely. It sickens me, but not surprised.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,608 posts)Just being black, brown, Asian or glbtq is making an identity statement in twenty first century America.
rocktivity
(44,973 posts)I told people my first choice was a Obama because I felt he would be less of a corporatist, but did anyone believe me???
rocktivity
Metric System
(6,048 posts)"But if you opt to cast your vote in favor of the Republican party (which a Sanders write-in or a non-vote is, no doubt about it) because your former hero-worship of someone was shattered, that I not only cannot support, but strongly condemn. That is the ultimate in "Me, or no one" thinking, which is part and parcel of the farthest-right conservative wing of the Republican party.
So while I understand the diary, no tip or rec from me."
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)My vote has nothing to do with hero worship, shattered or otherwise, and a write-in or a non-vote is not a vote for the GOP. It's merely a write-in or a non-vote, a vote of nonconfidence for both major parties, and a lost opportunity for us.
The "unless you vote for a Democrat you're really voting for a Republican" meme proceeds from the assumption that anyone who has ever voted for a Democrat is thereafter obligated to vote for any Democrat. Voters don't think that way, and no amount of name-calling will change that. No politician or party is entitled to anyone's vote. Counting lost opportunities as votes for the other guy merely underscores that you're taking voters for granted, and that's not a good long-term strategy.
rock
(13,218 posts)"which a Sanders write-in or a non-vote is ..." While it's true that it is a vote in favor of the Republican party, it's only a half-count. Slap me for being so pedantic (maybe I got OPD).
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)What a dumb post.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)That you don't like it, matters not. In fact, that makes it even more adult and credible.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)I've wasted too many votes on Blue Dogs, DLC Third Wayers, and New Dems.
I'll never vote for a Republican, but you no longer get my vote just by having a "D" next to your name. Even worse, I have seen, with my own eyes, our current DNC Chair endorse Republicans. Where is her loyalty?
As the guy says, I'd rather gnaw my hands off before voting for another corporate, neo-liberal, triangulator. I want what's advertised. I wouldn't buy a used car from Nixon either.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)I will only vote for the best candidate possible and that candidate can not be anyone that used political reasons to vote for a war.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)that she might do a write- in vote, and will vote
for other dems. If she does that it will not be
"irresponsible".
I remember a huge complaint at DU after the
2014 elections that people did not vote, they did not even
give a protest vote.
Well, the writer says that she is going to vote; I get slowly
the feeling that there will be lots of protest votes.
They still are votes.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)Anyone who is so pathetic that they will withhold their vote regardless of if it's Hillary or Sanders deserves the SCOTUS that will result if Justice Ginsberg, or Justice Kennedy gets replaced with another Justice Scalia/Justice Thomas type.
The Presidency and the Senate races of 2016 have very high potential to be the most important races of the last 50 years due to SCOTUS potential alone.
I'll fight for my horse in the Primary, but come the General.. whomever has the (D) by their name will have every bit of support I can muster, and it won't just be a vote, it will be volunteering, going to rallies, canvasing neighborhoods, phone banking, and eating spam and Ramen noodles to squeeze every penny I can afford to donate to our Presidential candidate for the General, and for every (D) Senator running in battleground states.
I LOVE the way the majority of the cases (not all, but most and especially ACA, and GLBT rights) have swung in the SCOTUS the last decade or so, and I don't want to see that come to a screeching halt (or worse, switching gears into reverse) just because babies with hurt feelings can't take their chosen teddy bear not being picked.
Really, they need to grow up already.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Just like I wouldn't vote for Netanyahu if he were an American citizen just because he's a Jewish person. There are plenty of other good reasons not to vote for Netanyahu as most of us here would realize.
Electing a Jewish person as president would also be a momentous occasion for people of that faith too.
But I support Sanders now because he, as a candidate and a potential leader that works for the issues this country needs fixed is the best equipped PERSON to do so! I'd vote for him if he were Muslim too, if he had the same life history too! Someone like Keith Ellison would be awesome down the road in my book!
I think when we vote for the first Jewish person, the first person of color, or the first woman as president, we should be careful and pick someone who will do the best job, and set a TEMPLATE for future politicians with like identities to follow. If we elect someone like Bernie or Elizabeth Warren as president, we would be setting precedents for future Jewish and women candidates so that people will know that those we elected in the past were great, and that there's a good possibility that we might have a decent person of their identity in the future too.
I'm concerned that someone like Obama, with a lot of his later shortcomings, might work in reverse of this equation and make it harder for another decent person of color who really wants to work for the peoples' interests and not push things like the TPP, to get elected president.
Most of us will look at future candidates as many of us look at Bernie as being the right person. But there will be many in the future that are borderilne bigots that will use past history of a past politician of that identity and use that as a reason to campaign against others later that will make getting them elected that much harder. I hope that we can avoid that.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)The greatest president of the past 50 years who is polling at incredible 50% six years in and has done more to advance the progressive agenda than any president since FDR will somehow make it harder for a person of color to get elected??? Wow.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... and it's legislation, but I don't, and other thoughtful Americans don't either!
Obama supported that POS crap TPA, TPP, and other future crappy "trade deals" even if we have a Republican president and congress in power where Democrats won't be able to stop any of that then. Why? You tell me! In my book, it's because he's a SELLOUT!
Identity politics works in both ways for those who use it to guide their voting decisions. I would vote for a POC of in the future if they have decent platforms and track records for pushing decent policies, etc. too. But even though many voters would vote for someone because they are a POC, there are many who would vote against them too because they are a POC. And if you have a politician setting a precedent as a first POC doing bad policies, you'l have these voters that using identity politics against POC using those bad policies to try and get more voters to vote against what might be a decent POC candidate in the future. That's what I don't want to see enabled. That's why I still think the best policy is to look past a candidate's identities, and look at what they are as a person and their stances and records on issues. We get the best person and it helps in all ways.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Never mind his long and growing list of historic achievements, the most recent of which is Iran. TPP is all that matters?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)How about drone strikes killing American citizens?
How about record numbers of prosecutions of American citizen whistleblowers over any other president?
How about him not even bothering trying to push negotiating for a public option for the ACA, let along single payer at even a fraction of the amount he pushed on passing the TPP and TPA?
How about him being willing to negotiate cuts to social security with Republicans?
How about him having a WORSE record prosecuting Wall Street criminals than even Reagan had against Savings and Loan criminals of his day?
I could go on and on, but a lot of the issues that involve economic interests of those donating to campaign have been worked to favor campaign donors and the PTB rather than American citizens.
ibegurpard
(17,072 posts)Charter schools and corporate education reform
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... like pushing for more nuclear power...
... and more oil drililng despite what's happened in the gulf there earlier where he had them put Corexit and related oil dispersents that made the gulf spill environmental damage even worse.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)environment, immigration. Raising taxes on the rich. Passing the most significant financial regulation since the depression. Not to mention the huge list of things that the GOP blocked in congress.
Overall, he's been a transformative progressive president, more so than anyone since LBJ at least (and LBJ had a little war thing going on). His legacy is something to be proud of, regardless of race or gender or anything else.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Sometimes progress is measured one inch at a time. Which is why progressives all or nothing strategy often ends with the nothing part. I'll vote for whoever the Dem nominee is. Too much at stake.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... for many young voters especially who are now saying that they are all just as bad as Republicans as "Democrats" of the kind they are used to that have been selling us out so much recently.
If we elect GOOD Democrats as our candidates, and made it a party to be proud to be a part of, it will make it easier to elect them in the future rather than so many going down in the same election when so many non-person progressive initiatives like raising the minimum wage and legalizing marijuana passed in the same states.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Not everywhere in America is like NY, Seattle, or San Fran. etc. We can push moderates towards a liberal agenda, but we can't push cons toward a liberal agenda. If West VA elects a moderate who will vote with liberals 50% of the time it sure beats losing the seat to a con who will vote with liberals 0% of the time.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... and in the same election vote in Republicans over Democrats in the Senate? HMMM... Could it be that being corporatist in a Democrat's agenda really is NOT representing what the average people want, and more what the corporate people that paid for their campaigns wanted? Me thinks so! And that is why Bernie is getting a lot of momentum now. Many independents and Republicans that wouldn't touch corporate Democrats any more are now joining the party to vote for him in the primary.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Every 6th year of every 2 term president since Eisenhower is somehow indicative of an anomaly?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)influencing elected officials corrupting our government?
mythology
(9,527 posts)Based on that we can believe one of two things.
First, that minimum wage is a valid proxy for a voter's overall preferred political position and voters that support a higher minimum wage actually do want progressive Democrats to be elected and to show this vote for regressive Republicans who are by definition, further away from the voter's preferred position.
Alternatively we can believe that minimum wage is not a valid proxy for a voter's overall preferred political and that overall the voters in those states actually do prefer Republican policies and thus vote for Republicans.
Which of those seems more likely?
As for your contention that the first option explains why Sanders has risen in the polls, how does that conflate with a similar rise for Trump in the polls? He's pure corporate and yet has shot to the top of the Republican primary and has been drawing some impressive crowds of his own like at his recent event in Phoenix.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Oh...yeah Seattle
Oh ...yeah not a democrat
A....SOCIALIST.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Which is what the CORPORATE leadership of this party was putting in as candidates for election in these states. Many of these voters hate being pushed down the ladder with low minimum wages whether they are Democratic voters or Republican voters. But both party candidates that they get put in front of them are pro corporate that want to screw them for their corporate buddies. So many of them would rather vote for a party which is a bit more honest that they are corporation's buddies, and might vote on other social issues for what they want than a Democrat who will screw them on economic policies and not be a fan of theirs on social issues either.
The minimum wage vote is a proxy vote for them wanting a candidate that supports populist issues that corporate elements of both parties don't consistently support. They don't have to worry about "trust" with an issue they are voting on rather than a person.
Someone like Bernie, who will take on voting for those populist stances on issues like the minimum wage more to what they want and does so in a way where they feel he's more honest on this and so many other issues is more apt to get their vote, even if they feel he might be a bit different in their views on some social issues. And even on some of these issues, like gun control, they see someone like Sanders taking a more nuanced stance when he was a senator for Vermont to work for his constituents wishes.
i would argue that the minimum wage is a proxy not on a "left/wing" scale the way corporate Democrats try to have all candidates analyzed, but is a proxy measure for the level of populism a state wants on the scale of whether a candidate is pro 1% or pro 99%. So many so-called "moderates" are anything but "moderate" when measured on the populist scale. They are very much pro wealth minority and therefore are far more EXTREME in their viewpoints for that wealthy segment of the populace.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)put a stop to this country electing white guy presidents,amirite?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)It's hard to point at one like a bigot might towards Obama and say all of them will be like him in the future.
I'm not to say that I or many other rational people would be less inclined to vote for a POC in the future because of Obama's track record. But I think we open it up to have others critique others in unjust fashion.
They even went after Obama not being an American citizen even though he was born in Hawaii, and ran against a candidate that was born in Panama...
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)"set the TEMPLATE for future politicians with like identities"?
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)And he did set a good template for us then. But in that case, he didn't have any one of other identities to compare against as he was the first president.
Now, the more you have someone of the same identity elected, it is hard for a bigot to point at any one of them and say they are all bad like that one person. That's why I'm saying I'd like to see people get elected by their stances on issues, and if and when we get a decent woman like Elizabeth Warren, or in my book someone like Keith Ellison who's both a POC and a Muslim, that they can set decent precedents that would make it harder for bigots to tear them down, if their policies worked well for most of their constituency (VOTING constituency, and not their contributor constituency).
MisterP
(23,730 posts)
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I love people who bake cookies. I don't have the baking gene. I can do it, I am just not all that interested. Because I am neuroatypical that means no matter how much I would love to have some homemade cookies they aren't going to happen unless I can get someone to bake them for me. Also there is that vague feeling she doesn't really respect homemakers and I think they deserve the utmost respect whether they are full time homemakers with no check or full time homemakers who also work outside of the home.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)I plan to either write in his name or leave the POTUS box blank.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)Bernie represents my interests way more than Hillary does. I couldn't care less that she's a woman. I use the same standards for all politicians.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)
quickesst
(6,309 posts)....not trying to be mean here, well, maybe a little, but all I see is.....
, and all I feel is....
. Sanders, or Clinton supporter, if someone told you that, you should have told them to just fuck off, and not go through a myriad of reasons that put them to sleep before they reach the end. Who you vote for and why you are voting for them should be your business alone. My opinion, which admittedly, isn't worth much around here.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Perhaps you are here by mistake, as speaking our minds is what happens here.
Put that in your "fuck off."
quickesst
(6,309 posts)"speaking our minds is what happens here". I thought I did just that. "Put that in your fuck off" My my.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Fucking hypocrite much?
quickesst
(6,309 posts)...Startled that it didn't take much to piss you off. I said if someone told another person they had to vote for a certain candidate for other than the voters own reason, it's my opinion that they should tell them to fuck off. If that's dropping a bomb then you must be horrified by someone setting off a firecracker. You then proceeded to drop the"bomb" in both responses. And you call me a hypocrite.
If English is not your first language I apologize for any misunderstanding.
artislife
(9,497 posts)to air opinions?
quickesst
(6,309 posts)And I didn't know cussin' had been banned either. Guess I need to check the rules.
artislife
(9,497 posts)quickesst
(6,309 posts)You're right on that.
wolfie001
(6,927 posts).....is healthy for the Dems and Bernie, but I'll vote for the most VIABLE candidate from that direction. Our country does not need another 2000. A "triangulator" is better than a religious lunatic from the clown car party.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)wolfie001
(6,927 posts)I was expecting an auto-da-fé. 
jeff47
(26,549 posts)wolfie001
(6,927 posts).....egads, not again! 
jeff47
(26,549 posts)For example, he probably would have won NH, making FL moot.
DonCoquixote
(13,939 posts)This Latino would have voted for Rubio, Cruz, or Jeb, who knows that his son will always be "the little brown one" and that then family power rests on getting people to accept brown people in power.
That being said..Neither of those three needs to be allowed to be a dogcatcher. Period. FULL STOP. For various reasons that could fill a library of books, these idiots must not be allowed anywhere near Pennsylvania Avenue.
Indeed, the only thing that will make me vote for Hillary is to keep on of those three out. And what is sad is, I nrealize that is perfectly fine with many Hillary voters. Many of them are cackling like Macbeth's witches, saying "after they vote, we won't need them so it is time top purge the left and punish the Obama voters, hehehehehehehehe! We will gt Domestic policy written by Wall Street and foreign policy written by Bibi Netanyahu, and many of her voters will nto care because they will see someone who they think looks like them in power.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,939 posts)What was in this study that defined "liberal" and what was done to keep this study from having biases. For example, if willingness to go to war with Syria is liberal for purposes of the study, it still clash against the facts that many liberals do not want yet another middle eastern war to make Bibi happy. I could easily say "100 percent of Hillary voters will not vote for Jeb Bush, but that says nothign about many of those people calming to be "Hillary voters" will not vote for the GOP, as it gets shown every mid term. You cannot just quote unproven numbers , claiming all the veracity of 2 plus 2, sand not say who you got at them, or for that matter, what is LIBERAL IS! Then again, Hillary voters ignored that when Jackpine brought it up too.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)Which is the same reason you're bringing it up.
DonCoquixote
(13,939 posts)and yet the people who refuse to allow liberal to be defined still quote Hillary was rated 90 percent liberal as if they were stating that the boiling point of water is 212 degrees.
We can talk about fitting narratives when some refuse to discuss what makes Hillary such a liberal, especially when many of her positions are anything but the classically defined liberal. FDR is considered a liberal, and yet we all saw how her policy wonk stated "we are not going to see Glass-steagall" as if to make sure wall street was not going to be unhappy
There is narrative, and then there is moving the goalpost, which is what many supporters of the Clintons have been doing for years. Sure, Nixon admittedly was to the left of many of the current GOP. He made the EPA, something that many of the current Democrats might not do. Yet, for all of that, is anyone going to call Nixon a 90 percent liberal, no.
Do not accuse people of fitting narratives if you are going to keep moving the goalposts farther to the right. Jackpine of course, were he among us, would have retorted with far better skill than I have, yet the facts are the same. Until people define WHAT A LIBERAL IS, then quoting statistics that prove liberal cred are meaningless, because the definition can then be manipulated to suit the bias of the study, but then again, I doubt that fits into the narrative Hillary plans to tell.
jalan48
(14,914 posts)She's not going to be and Hillary probably is, for some obvious reasons.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Although the Arkansas seat would have been cheaper to buy, there was no guarantee she could win. The NY senate seat was a virtual lock. Plus, NYC is the center of power she craved, and that's where the Wall St banks she wanted to woo for a Presidential run are. She never had any interest in representing the people in the State of NY or perusing a Senate career...it was merely a stepping stone.
Now, there is nothing wrong with ambition itself...it's just when one becomes so ambitious that one sells their soul and is willing to be a puppet of their owners rather than a representative of the people, that this narcissistic level of ambition becomes bad.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)They were dead broke destitute, remember?
It's not like she worked her way up the ladder...the U.S. Senate was her first elected office. If her name wasn't Clinton, there's no way she would have gotten the campaign war-chest or been elected.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)some are willing to get around here. I think I'm done with this thread.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Do you suppose if sufrommich ran for Senator in New York you would stand as good a chance as Hillary did?
Chemisse
(31,278 posts)I support Bernie. But if Clinton is the nominee I will vote for her.
There is no candidate in the Republican primaries who I would vote for - or allow to win by not voting. Hillary has a lot of flaws. But none compare to those of any of the Republicans.
As we saw with Bush and Gore, it can make the difference between peace and war, progress on green energy and increasing reliance on fossil fuels.
Horrible things can happen under a Republican president; we need to do all we can to prevent that.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 15, 2015, 06:48 PM - Edit history (1)
Happy now?
joking.
marym625
(17,997 posts)
This is awesome!
Frankly, she sold out kids too. No Child Left Behind is one of the biggest tragedies of our time.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)I agree with this comment following an article in Daily Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/07/15/1402366/-A-comment-on-a-Bernie-Sanders-post-grabbed-me-despite-all-my-cynicism#
It's all about money when a candidate doesn't stand for anything but a less sexist oligarchy.
Hillary: Making sure women get a bigger piece of the middle-class pie that her neoliberal, DLC, pro-Wall Street, pro-Pentagon, pro-TPP, Republican-lite economic policies are designed to shrink.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)the Hillary supporters that she is not going to get huge numbers of crossover Republican women to vote for her (were she to win the nomination) just because of a heart-felt yearning on the part of all women for a female President.
Would any of us vote for Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann were either of them at the top of the ticket? I don't think so.
For me Hillary is a terrible choice. I am a Bernie supporter at this point.
And the terrible truth for all of us, regardless of who we support, that for most of us our vote won't count because we live in a state that's reliably Republican or Democratic. Without the Electoral College there would be a genuine nationwide campaign, a real battle for every single vote. How I'd love to see that.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)still_one
(98,883 posts)nominee, including if it is Bernie.
However, I have seen numerous posts, from supposed Bernie supporters who find it imperative to declare that if Hillary is the nominee, they would NEVER vote for her.
Guess what? If Bernie Sanders lost the Democratic nomination, without a doubt, he would support Hillary. In fact, he would endorse her in that case.
The Supreme Court if nothing else should be reason enough to vote for the Democratic nominee.
but as far as I am concerned, if some people don't think it is that important, then its fine with me if they want to take their marbles and go home.
The nice about that, is once the Democratic nominee is chosen, those that choose to snipe against that Democratic nominee will NOT be welcomed here
bravenak
(34,648 posts)She has never apologized or explained that bullshit. Among other things.
still_one
(98,883 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)She has said why over and over. Just letting you know that people have their reasons for not voting for Clinton (very good ones in fact). It's up to her to change minds not up to us to move in her direction.
I did kinda wonder what your point was. Still don't know now. Thought I had it figured out. Maybe just to give a lecture.
still_one
(98,883 posts)the the Democratic nominee. However, the same is not true in regard to some Bernie Sanders supporters on DU.
If you inject reasons why someone won't vote for a candidate, that still doesn't negate my observation.
You don't like my observation, that is fine.
Have a good day
bravenak
(34,648 posts)still_one
(98,883 posts)Democratic nominee is.
However, if you really want to put me on the spot, ask me what I would do if Webb was the democratic nominee?
That is the only democratic candidate who I could not vote for in the general election. So in the almost 0% probability that Webb would become the democratic nominee, I have a similar position as the OP. I know, inconsistent, but honest.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)you wouldn't be able to post on DU anymore if Hillary wins the nomination. Which would suck.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Besides, I already said that the only Dem I would not leave my house for on election day is Webb.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)still_one
(98,883 posts)talking heads on the idiot box, because the majority of Democrats, progressives, and moderates do not think that way.
However, when the author of this tripe says the following:
"I would rather chew off my own two hands than vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2016, and (if Bernie Sanders is not the Democratic nominee) I plan to either write in his name or leave the POTUS box blank."
that speaks volumes about that person's lack of critical thinking.
Simply looking at the most recent event regarding the Iran deal, Every single republican candidate is against it, while every SINGLE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE IS FOR IT, indicates to me the cut my nose off to spite my face philosophy of the author
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)
IVoteDFL
(417 posts)I am sick and tired of people telling me to be excited for a female president. I vote with my head, not my genitals.
If it was a woman who gave half a shit about me, HELL YES I would be excited. Hillary Clinton is not that woman. She does NOT represent my interests.
btw I'm your neighbor over in MN. We can be two handless chicks together if HRC wins the nomination.
still_one
(98,883 posts)feel
IVoteDFL
(417 posts)before I was even born....
I can vote for whoever I want, and I think the TOS back me up on that.
DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative
still_one
(98,883 posts)
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)I guess that's another advantage to being a dude.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)If it comes down to Clinton vs. (insert GOP blockhead here) please consider voting for Clinton. I'm not one of those people who says you have to do or the world will end, but think about it. We would have a completely loony Congress and a president who would not veto any of the bizarre nonsense they produced. As a Sanders supporter, I appreciate a vote for Clinton would seem like abandoning your principles. I know it's time to stop this Third Way foolishness, filling in for extinct moderate Republicans. (I think there's one in a zoo somewhere, but they can't find a mate, so that's it.) I don't think Clinton would be as good a president as Obama has been, but she would be better than (blockhead again), particularly with a nutty Congress.
still_one
(98,883 posts)Rilgin
(795 posts)The primary season really started in earnest a few months ago and to date, I have not read a single (and I mean a single) post from a Hillary Supporter who sets out those positions.
Understand, a speech where one says "I want to be your champion" is not a position. Saying she is experienced (although what does experience mean) is not a position. Saying she is a liberal or a progressive is not a position without discussing what you mean.
Saying she polls better than the republicans is not a position. Saying what about the Supreme Court is not a position unless you know what her position is in appointing judges. Saying she supports women's rights or has been a fighter for civil rights is not a position. It is a claim. It is either supported or rejected as a true claim based on discussion of her past positions and acts. However, this is what HRC supporters desperately avoid.
With respect to almost all claims about HRC, there is no answer (total crickets) for the basis of any particular claim that is put forth by HRC supporters and its even worse when non-supporters actually bring up elements of her past or current affairs, acts, words, speeches to ask for clarification.
When non-supporters ask how do you reconcile a claim that she has always been a fighter for civil rights with her prior positions with respect to gay rights, there are total crickets because her previous actual positions are not compatible with someone who has always been a fighter for all civil rights. There are crickets when people ask about how it is compatible with fighting for women and children to support bomb and drone strikes or to vote against banning land mines. There are crickets when people try to discuss her actual positions (emphasis on the positions) on education and particularly public schools.
On a personal level, I believe, without actually knowing her positions, that HRC supports some portion of a civil right, feminist agenda. There are warts in this area (gay rights and the affect of war on women and children) however on the whole she seems good on social issues. In the economic sphere is where the real disconnect takes place. Her past actions and positions are all over the map and supporters desperately want to avoid this issue.
Am I being unkind. Not really. As I said, I have not seen ONE post where a HRC supporter actually set out the HRC positions that is the basis of their support.
So, I am requesting that you prove me wrong. In your post, you say people support Hillary because of her positions. Please be the one post in the last few months which actually sets out those positions and please do not just reiterate the claim that she will be a great president because she is experienced, a fighter, or any of the other non-positional reasons given every day in these posts.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Just like white people were traitors to their race for voting for Obama.
(According to Republicans)
I didn't vote for Obama because he's black.
I voted for him because he's smart.
lobodons
(1,290 posts)I do not want the SCOTUS to go 6-3 or 7-2 Scalia, Alito, Thomas Conservative Super Majority.
I lean towards Progressive Liberal Democratic Socialist, but I am not stupid. Bernie would be great, but Hillary has best chance to prevent Radical GOP take over of SCOTUS for next 30 years.
still_one
(98,883 posts)doubt that every Democratic candidates running, except maybe Webb, including Bernie or Hillary, will vote for whoever is the winner of the Democratic nomination
artislife
(9,497 posts)The State of Washington has had 3 impressive women that I got to vote for multiple times.
That was great because I felt my votes mattered.
My state will go Blue. It is very important that I keep the most progressive people winning.
There are a lot of things that really hit home that are decided by local elections more than national.
I didn't live in her district, but Kshama Sawant sure kicked off a wave that went national. Sure, it went over a lot of ground and only touched down in a few places. But that wave reminds me of the marriage equality wave.
I worry about radiation fall out from Fukushima, oils spills in the oceans or on the prairies, genetically modified food without labels, the prison industrial complex, the student loan bubble, civil rights, economic rights.
If you see how H has acted you would see why she doesn't get a pass from me.
I think we should poll this site and see where the boomers, the Xers(me), the millennials fall. I don't think there are many who are younger on this site. But the future is now. We can't ignore the cost to this planet.
It may actually be too late.
And this election will matter as much as what was for dinner the night before Mt Vesuvius blew.
boston bean
(36,839 posts)I can't wait to see Hillary be voted in a President of the United States.
onecaliberal
(36,594 posts)If you follow that thought process, McCain should have won because Palin.
It's beyond ridiculous to suggest I would donate to, or vote for a candidate because of gender.
valerief
(53,235 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,939 posts)if the GOP VP becomes a Nikki Haley, or a Susanna Martinez, a Carly Fiorina, a Condi Rice or god even Palin, the GOP will be able to use identity politics to cut Hillary cut off at the knees. The same folks in those red purples states might be ready for a Woman president, they just are not ready for Hillary. All of the GOP women I mentioned will happily play the role of Maggie Thatcher.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Running mate. Before we knew her.
I thought, there goes the election to the GOP.
Thankfully, she is who she is and that didn't come to pass.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Hillary is the most qualified candidate, I am supporting Hillary along with many other women.
still_one
(98,883 posts)
Depaysement
(1,835 posts)Straight from the heart. You must be some chick.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Maybe not from this writer, but from a lot of women.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)he 'wasn't going to let any WOMEN'S STUDIES group who just WANTED PONIES stop THEM, whoever THEY are, considering he was a not-so-former Republican and still OPPOSED ABORTION at that point, 'lose us an election'.
There is NO ONE on the FACE OF THE EARTH other than the most extreme far right Republican, who has LESS right to speak for women!
This really shows how PHONY these elections are. When a man who opposes abortion, who wrote when in college that he feared that if Gays were allowed in the Military they 'might see me in my underwear' is considered a SPOKESPERSON for the Dem Party, and there's so much more that could be said about Kos here, all of it DOCUMENTED, is it any wonder that people are beginning to question the entire system and both parties.
Kennah
(14,465 posts)still_one
(98,883 posts)until next year, and the debates haven't even started
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)still_one
(98,883 posts)will their complaint mean if they didn't take part in the voting.
Incidentally, the author in the OP did not say they would not vote, they just said they would not vote for a particular person if that person was the Democratic nominee
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)still_one
(98,883 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Though I think Trump will 'quit' at the last second, and herd his followers votes to the real primary candidate. Similar to what happened to Ron Paul's 'followers'.
still_one
(98,883 posts)
oasis
(53,293 posts)Because a few "chicks" choose to chew off their hands.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)oasis
(53,293 posts)From the big picture, that's fine with me. Keep in mind that sometimes posters bear their souls to a concerned community in hopes of being talked down off the ledge. This may be the case here.
still_one
(98,883 posts)
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Women can call themselves whatever they want to.
still_one
(98,883 posts)though I suspect it is offensive to some
ReallyIAmAnOptimist
(357 posts)Yes I'm a woman, but no I'm not voting based on plumbing. Give me a a candidate that stands for what I believe in, and they'll get my vote. Go Bernie!
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)It was her "fuck you, if you lose your job to China, go be a lawyer for a company that exploits slave labor in China like me and you too can be rich and pay someone to bake cookies for you." phase.
She says she has evolved since then.
But, that's just bullshit people say to get elected.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Most American's agreed and trust her, she is a good person!
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Heard Jeff Santos repeat this nonese about Hillary: He is now
being kick off WCPT in Chicago.
The Chicago will be off with out him and his ilk
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)
IronLionZion
(50,716 posts)Especially if Russ Feingold is running again, then liberal Dems might stand a chance. I would think every vote matters.
I know that's not the main point in your post, but still.
Gamecock Lefty
(708 posts)For betraying my gender. Almost.
I'm a guy voting for Hillary!!!
RAISE HILL 2016!
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Laser102
(816 posts)I like her. I like her policy positions. I admire her strength. I am voting for Hillary. She is not a one trick pony. I am voting for Hillary. Don't vote for her if you feel she is the devil which is what I get from some of these posts. You have a choice. So do I. eom
ismnotwasm
(42,663 posts)I'm not supporting her because of gender either, but I take it you really, really dislike her.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Guffaw!
What about your left chick. The Sanders, all of them, are more left chick than right chick.
Tres chick!
Evergreen Emerald
(13,096 posts)No one is telling you to support Clinton because she is a woman, just like no one told you to vote for Obama because he was an african american.
You don't want to vote for her that's fine. But, please stop exaggerating, distorting her record and attributes to justify your rant.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)This posting is very angry left winger,
I
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)I remember a friend of mine said that she was going to vote for Margaret Thatcher and I said, "You can't be serious!"
William769
(59,147 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(101,608 posts)800-INOCARE
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Your camel is very strong for not have broken down due to the great weight of straw you are piling on its back. Very strong.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)
BooScout
(10,408 posts)Anyone that would recommend a thread that advocates not voting for the Democratic nominee in the general election needs to take a long hard look at themselves. To not vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever it may be is akin to voting for the Republican nominee.
And wth is it with criticism of Hillary regarding Bill and Monica? It's pathetic to try and blame her for anything to do with that bit of history and to make a judgment regarding her marriage and her staying in her marriage is just disgusting not to mention lame brained and idiotic....and frankly makes one sound .....well like a repuke would.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)This posting is why Sanders campaign is no help in fighting the
GOP
Hillary is the best chance to stop the war against the Iran the
GOP wants.
Sanders is just an nice man with out any political skills, I have
heard him for years: He was never impressive, this
posting by Segami shows that the country has a crazy left
wing that hurts this country just as badly as the Tea Party at times.
lark
(25,841 posts)Maybe things like minimum wages, healthcare subsidies, helping the environment, women controlling their own reproduction choices, SCOTUS mean nothing to you so you are willing to sacrifice them for your purity in voting. Well, that doesn't make it right, there's more than you involved. Kill the country so you can be pure from voting for anyone with even a taint of corporatism so that someone who is 100% corporatist and hates workers, women, children, education and loves war dirty water and air can make all the rules. Yep, that's really smart thinking.
I really like Bernie and am voting for him in the primary. However, whoever is the Dem nominee will get my vote because I and my family and friends can'[t tolerate what a Repug would do to us, especially if they have all 3 branches. Seems like you don't care about that?
ananda
(34,290 posts)..
oasis
(53,293 posts)
moondust
(21,177 posts)"The first woman ________ will inspire our girls."
jwirr
(39,215 posts)having elected President Obama has somehow erased racism for all AAs? It does not work that way.
I do not look at gender when I vote because I think that electing a woman will say something about me. I look at issues that will be good for my family.
I AM EQUAL in qualifications and gravitas. It is a fact and I do not have to see a woman elected to make it so. Granted I have to convince others that is so but that would be true regardless of who is elected. Most important is that I know it is true.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Kidding.
Hillary is going to be our nominee and then our next President.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)Conservatives (including a sad few in our own party) cynically think of a candidate's cultural identity (if other than white and male) as a kind of stunt calculated to get votes. Wrapped up in there somewhere is the backwards notion that it's actually some kind of advantage to be part of any minority or marginalized cultural identity.
I read a spin piece recently, arguing that a woman seeking a statewide office in my area would be an "immoral" choice, because another (very conservative, Republican voting) Democratic man with a Latin surname is also running. No qualitative argument; no comparison of policy or principle -- just a crass calculation that Hispanic voters will pull the lever based on a name.
We're better than that.
Remember this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/us/politics/12campaign.html?_r=0
Ferraro exited Hillary's 2008 campaign quickly after that. Ferraro had some strange and unpleasant ideas about how cultural identity works in this country.
I like Bernie too, but Hillary's value as a candidate, however it all shakes out, will be in her polices and her abilities and the strength of her campaign. As a woman, she will have to fight prejudice just as Obama did to succeed, but true progressives likewise won't back her based on her identity alone.
She is a candidate, not a demographic.
Response to Segami (Original post)
Post removed