Would you vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination?

[eridani]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Autumn (a host of the Bernie Sanders group).

Taking the local temperature here.

10 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Poll closed
	Stop being a Debbie Downer--Sanders will be nominated
	0 (0%)
	Yes
	6 (60%)
	No--will leave the presidential line blank
	1 (10%)
	No--will write in Sanders
	3 (30%)
	No--will vote for Jill Stein or other 3rd party candidate
	0 (0%)
	Irrelevant--I don't live in the US
	0 (0%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[eridani]

1. I'm a Yes

Sanders will attempt to put the country in Drive, but that's can't happen unless there is an ongoing mass movement. With Clinton, we would be in Neutral, which IMO beats the bejeezus out of being slammed into Reverse by any Republican. If we are in Neutral, a mass movement at least has the possibility of pushing us forward.

[delrem]

24. Canadian, so not my problem.

However, you're dead wrong about Hillary putting the USA into "neutral".
That's a crock of shit.

She's a hawk. Not just "hawkish", but deep down in the bones a warmongering hawk and her term as SOS was a disaster for the world, as bad as *. In fact, she immediately hired Cheney's neocon advisor. She'll advance the cause of the MIC, of war profiteers.

Both she and her husband have taken payola in the form of cash for "speeches" to a totally new level - what'd they rake in, $200 million? More? Bill raking it in even while Hillary was SOS. Totally shameless about it, too, so totally convinced that her third-way team has the Dem party sewn up, that no amount of openly displayed political graft would be a threat to her victory. She'd give the country away to the banks, no question about it. Which is why her campaign is running from her history, from her record, and refuses to debate on those issues.

That is NOT NEUTRAL. It is an acceleration of the rightward push of US politics.

The result of a HRC win in primary then GE would be total devastation for the Democratic party - 8 more years of further unopposed consolidation of oligarchic power.

I would vote only for progressives. I would work - as Bernie says NEEDS TO BE DONE - on building a grass roots progressive movement. Building the infrastructure. Not just in election years! Not just during a campaign, obsessively focused as they are on personalities and gimmickry.

OK, said enough - you get the picture.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. No, undecided exactly what I'll do.

But I won't vote for the woman whose campaign went racist when running against Barack Obama without her even trying to stop it.

[merrily]

3. Et, tu?

[retrowire]

4. in tempted to write in Bernie just on principal. n/t

[TBF]

5. Pleading the 5th on that one

but let's just say I like Jill Stein almost as much as Bernie Sanders.

[eridani]

7. I liker her too--the problem is that last time she ran she had about as many campaign workers--

--knocking on doors that Kshama Sawant did in 2013 running for a single city council seat. Wondering why she doesn't run for MA state legislature and push for single payer there.

[TBF]

8. Oh I agree the Green Party needs to refocus

if they want serious support in this country. You're not going to win the presidency without a single member holding a seat in the House of Reps or Senate.

But if the choice is Clinton vs. Bush who is motivated to vote other than the top 5% in this country?

That is why I decide to donate as much as I can to Bernie EARLY, in hopes for good showing in the early primaries. It may be a waste of $$$ but at least it gives him a chance.

[merrily]

9. If you like Bernie better, why would you vote Stein rather than write in Bernie?

I don't see Bernie winning unless he is the Democratic nominee and I don't see Stein winning ever. So, why not vote for the one you prefer?

BTW, at this point, the Green nominee has not been determined.

http://2016.green-party.info/

[canoeist52]

6. I don't under stand this idea ...

Of letting any candidate know that you'd vote for them no matter what they said or did. There's a reason voting is done in a booth.

If you swear your vote to any candidate unconditionally, why would that candidate ever feel obligated to represent your wishes?

[merrily]

10. Bingo.

[merrily]

11. FYI, Jill Stein is not the Green nominee yet.

http://2016.green-party.info/

[HereSince1628]

12. You're asking me to endorse an outcome that is shear speculation

As any experienced political type knows endorsing a speculative political outcome is a concession step in a psy-ops campaign.

[MuseRider]

13. I am answered yes but

if this were any other year I would be tempted and probably would write in Bernie Sanders.

We are too close with many issues to going completely into death mode. SCOTUS is not exactly why I like to cast my vote for President. As a woman I HAVE to cast a vote for the only remaining, on ballot person who will protect my rights and the rights of my sisters.

Everything matters, most things I don't think she will help and quite a few I think she would push right over the wrong edge but I do trust that her nominees for SCOTUS would be protective of women's health and rights issues.

Sucks but there it is.

[djean111]

14. Not doing the Pledge-y Thing. Not for anyone.

Not for "Bernie supporters", not for posters who remind me of baking ingredients and music.
Never thought I would see this ridiculous question in the Bernie Group. Sorry.

I would like to mention that, having been bombarded with boasts about how very many Democrats love and adore Hillary - I am really puzzled as to why this thing keeps popping up. As I understand it, there are 14 Bernie supporters and 17 billion Hillary worshipers, so why even care?

The other thing is, voting is supposedly secret in the US. I may volunteer how I am going to vote, but being questioned about it, especially being asked if I would vote for a Third Way icon, may not get the desired answer. Or outcome.

My current plan is to not even consider voting for Hillary, because I will not have to.
Consider my temperature, as far as HRC is concerned, as sub-arctic. In the winter. before global warming. And completely impervious to endorsements and directives from anyone. Anyone.

[senz]

15. Her greatest asset: she's not a Republican.

At this point, she's probably banking on it.

[Robbins]

16. For me

I probally won't be voting.Choice between Hillary and a republican isn't a choice.

If i knew back in 2012 what I knew in 2015 I wouldn't have voted then eather.So this isn't an anti-clinton decsion it's an anti-corporate Democrat decsion.and voting republican will never happen for me.

[sarge43]

17. Yes, because I vote and the alternative is too heidious to contemplate n/t

[hootinholler]

18. Please consider a self-delete on this

We aren't about purity tests or being reactionary towards camp weathervane in here.

We are about building the movement that will make our country a better place and I fail to see how this is helpful.

[eridani]

23. Just statistically demonstrating that most Sanders supporters are indeed Democrats

This seems to be a matter of contention in some other fourms.

[SoapBox]

19. No.

I've never done it in my lifetime...but I will write in Bernie.

The dirty tricks will increase and the slime will get just awful...she will be in the middle of it.

I'm very tired of it and have decided to finally vote with my heart, not because of demands for me to be a Zombie to the Party.

[MissDeeds]

21. I agree completely

I will not cast my vote to endorse her. She is the antithesis of nearly everything I believe in.

[Ed Suspicious]

20. I will vote for the candidate who best represents the interests of me and my community.

[LiberalArkie]

22. In 2008 I knew way too many people who voted for HRC in the primary, but set out the General.

I think it would the same this time also. Not the other way around.

[Autumn]

25. This does not meet the SOP for our group. Please delete