This article sums up the feelings for a lot of us

[Ned_Devine]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-spielberg/hillary-clinton-is-better_b_8848632.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

[brooklynite]

1. Remember all the PUMA people who refused to vote for Obama, throwing the election to McCain?

Neither do I.

Bottom line - for all the holier-than-thou chest thumping, almost every Sanders voter will support Hillary Clinton next November.

[TransitJohn]

20. It's not us we need to worry about though

It's the undecideds and unaffiliated, aka the independents. They will not break for Hillary, and will go to whichever clown the other side nominates. That's what worries me.

[cali]

31. I doubt it. I'd prefer that they did, but I doubt that a significant portion

of his young supporters will vote for her.

[randys1]

2. So you and A LOT OF YOU vow NOT to vote for the Democratic candidate if it is NOT

Bernie?

That is what the article says, that under NO circumstances does Hillary get the authors vote.

You have just admitted this applies to you as well and from what I can see you are suggesting others follow...

I have to be honest, I wish I hadnt said anything now, I wish those who agree with you or the author would ADMIT It on this thread.

[Gregorian]

12. I don't. Any R president would spell suffering for millions of poor and otherwise needy Americans

I have my reasons and opinions why I feel that anything but a markedly different course our country is taking is the only way to move forward, and anything else won't cut it. But there is reality. I have strong dreams and hopes that go beyond the next 100 election cycles.

[catnhatnh]

21. I'll bet you wish that...

But after the ridiculous banning of Loonix and Manny those who feel that way will no longer state it.

[Snotcicles]

22. I think I'll keep them guessing, It keeps them on their toes. nt

[upaloopa]

3. Well when the primary is over just stop posting then

It will be a relief not to have to scroll past all the Hillary bashing.

[randys1]

4. Uh, technically a person who says they will NOT support the dem party , shouldnt be here now

[upaloopa]

5. I agree I usually don't bother them though

[Douglas Carpenter]

25. should this person be banned?

Actually a number of Hillary supporters have said that they would never support Bernie even if he became the nominee.

Here is someone who also said that they would support Trump over Sen. Sanders:

Douglas Carpenter (19,801 posts)

129. I pledge to support Hillary if she is the nominee? Do you pledge to support Bernie if he is the nominee?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=868787

-----------

131. Absolutely not
I'm a Democrat. He is NOT a Democrat. I wouldn't vote for him if you held a gun to my head, just like I would never and have never voted for a republican in my 38 years of voting. In fact in the minuscule chance that he was nominated I would never give another red cent to the party, knock doors, or phone bank for Dems.

Not in a million fucking years. And frankly, at least 50% of that feeling could be credited to his supporters who have spent the last several years smearing the shit out of real Democrats.

So no, never, ever, ever would I vote for him. Never.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=868804

[Scootaloo]

30. But that's different.

Hillary supporters are not held to the ToS.

You can post from Stormfront or Gateway Pundit to attack a Democrat, and if you're a Hillary supporter, that's fine.

You can vow to vote republican if you don't get your candidate. and if you're a Hillary supporter, that's fine.

You can go on an epic bigoted flameout death-by jury frenzy about how an entire ethnic group is inhernetly pathological, and so long as you're a clinton supporter, that's fine.

Funny how it works.

[PowerToThePeople]

33. Truth. n/t

[randys1]

32. That is unacceptable to me, ANYONE who admits they will NOT support the Dem does NOT

belong here.

The reality is it is hinted at WAY more often by one side, but you found not only a hint but an actual statement.

So why they are still here, I dont know.

[closeupready]

6. "I am the lesser of two evils" didn't work for Christine Quinn.

It won't work for Hillary, either, in my opinion.

[upaloopa]

13. Fine tell somebody who cares

You want to take your self out of the game, fine. Hillary will still be president and you tell everyone you didn't vote for her.

[sufrommich]

7. And a whole lot more Sanders supporters disagree with you:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2015/12/20/new-poll-suggests-the-democratic-primary-lovefest/epoOLRtlmtPDxbzZyLIlWK/story.html

[Ned_Devine]

8. You have the hard numbers?

[sufrommich]

9. Did you bother to look at my link?

[840high]

29. I read some of

the comments at your link. Not very nice towards Hillary.

[emulatorloo]

16. Iowa NH Hard numbers here

From the link above:

--------------------
ON EDIT: I see below that you didn't really want the numbers. Mistakenly did not realize it was a rhetorical question. So I have self-deleted.
-------------------------

Thanks for sharing the article you linked to.

[Ned_Devine]

26. Thanks. I should have...

...just posted this in the Bernie forum. The swarm is ridiculous.

[Ned_Devine]

11. Actually I don't care if you have the numbers

I'm just posting an article that explains the mindset for many of us. Take it as you will.

[Jackilope]

10. Yep.

I live in a red state, but send $ regularly to Bernie and can drive to Iowa to volunteer. If HRC gets the D nomination, let's see her corporate donors cough up the cash, because I know she works for them, not us. My vote here will not matter, I am outnumbered in the red state and quite frankly, I really don't care to cast a vote for the lesser of two evils. Hoping Bernie gets the nomination.

[upaloopa]

14. I don't get why it is important to tell us

you won't vote for Hillary. She can still win enough electoral college votes to win.

She will probably lose Texas and most other red states.

So even if you voted for her it would only add to the total vote count.

[Jackilope]

15. Exactly. Those of us in red states are kinda off the hook and meaningless.

Eom

[upaloopa]

17. My primary vote in CA is in June and I don't think

it will help decide the nomination.

[PowerToThePeople]

18. I must say

Every vote I cast in the general election will be for a Democrat.

[one_voice]

19. Ok, so let's say...

that a bunch of y'all do what the article says and a puke gets in. Then what? What's your plan after that?

I'd like to know what happens in those 4 years when they have complete control and they dismantle everything that was done in the last 8.

So please tell me, what then?

[BlueCheese]

23. Then everything will magically get better.

Just like when Bush became president in 2001, things got a lot worse. Millions of people lost their jobs, we lost our worldwide credibility, we did nothing while climate change got much worse, and generally there was a huge amount of misery.

But it all worked out in the end, because people wised up, and now the Republicans are gone forever and everything is perfect. And all it took was 8+ years of complete global disaster. A small price to pay if you ask me-- especially when it was paid by other people, not me.

[BlueCheese]

24. I'm guessing that guy doesn't worry about where his next meal is coming from.

[mythology]

27. I'm not sure I'd admit to believing that article

The author talks a lot but bases his entire article on a blatantly factually incorrect statement. He claims that there isn't much difference between the two parties. That is an absolutely laughable statement given the evidence is clear the two parties are more divided than in at least 50 years.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/06/12/7-things-to-know-about-polarization-in-america/

So starting any article based on what is patently an absurd claim, makes me want to stop reading. But I continued since I sometimes like reading very stupid things.

Most of Clinton's positions are unacceptable to him. She voted the same as Sanders 93% of the time in the Senate. So mathematically speaking, that means a lot of Sanders positions must also be unacceptable to him. Or perhaps he's still basing his "evidence" on the conclusion that he wants to reach. Additionally in each of Clinton's sessions in the Senate she was rated the 11th most Senator by DW-Nominate scores. That put her to the left of the average Democratic Senator. Kind of awkward for then claiming that she is almost as bad as a Republican, especially in light of the author not being well enough informed on party polarization being so high rather than the parties being the same as he claims.

As for the contention that it was Gore who lost the 2000 election and it wasn't caused by Nader, that isn't nearly as cut and dried as either the author or his "reference" of the Jim Hightower article actually do a lot to make that claim conclusively. You would have to do a lot more research than either of them do to make that claim with any sort of authority. Again, this is yet another example of having a conclusion and then fitting the evidence to that conclusion.

Claiming that Democrats are supposed to support values like single payer doesn't actually make that so. Single payer isn't a plank in the party platform, nor is it the only way to improve our health care system. The Netherlands has ranked in the top 3 in European health care outcomes every year for the last decade and have a program that is far more like the ACA than it is like single payer. The author states that Democrats are supposed to support single payer, but again, he's writing about what he wants rather than what is.

Linking the decision to temporarily suspend the Sanders campaign's database access to the DNC being in a conspiracy with the Clinton campaign while at the same time lying about what the Sanders campaign did is frankly insulting. The author states that a staffer who has since been fired did everything, except we know that there were 4 staffers, one of whom has been fired, one of the ones who hasn't been fired tried to cover it up and the Sanders campaign initially lied saying it was a low level staffer (instead of 4 staffers) and not the national data director and that the Sanders campaign didn't respond to initial attempts to investigate.

The article is a joke. It's the rantings of a not particularly well informed author who is really just stomping his feet and threatening to hold his breath. He had his conclusion and then attempted (badly I might add) to form an argument to support his conclusion. It's a really bad way to make decisions because it means you don't put yourself in a position to make the most sensible decisions based on the factual evidence. Instead he's making it based on some fantasy he invented.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Agreed. K&R

I hope that everybody votes for the candidates that have convinced them to vote for them.