DU Poll: Bloomberg or Sanders?

[thesquanderer]

If it came down to Bloomberg and Sanders, who would you support?

114 votes, 5 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Bloomberg
	66 (58%)
	Sanders
	42 (37%)
	I'd wait to see a debate with the two of them before deciding
	6 (5%)
	Other answer (comment below)
	0 (0%)
	5 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[dchill]

1. I would have to let said recipe simmer.

I'll get back to you.

[msongs]

2. bernie is fair on policy but zero on person, bloomberg is repub lite but better on person nt

[brooklynite]

21. Progressive taxation, reproductive rights, gun control, environmental protection...

Republican lite?

[comradebillyboy]

62. Republican lite means not a socialist.

[brooklynite]

63. DEMOCRATIC Socialist...

Try to keep up....

[comradebillyboy]

64. I'm pretty sure I know what a social democrat is but I am not so

sure what a "democratic socialist" is supposed to be. Are there any socialist states that are also democracies? Cuba, North Korea, Peoples Republic of China, Venezuela are the currrent ones that come to mind. Europe gave up on socialism in the 90s.

[TwilightZone]

27. He's pretty liberal for a former Republican.

I think many are letting his time as a Republican influence their views of his record. He's certainly done and said some questionable things, but his overall record and positions are pretty liberal. More liberal than I suspect many here realize.

https://www.ontheissues.org/mike_bloomberg.htm

https://www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/michael-bloomberg/

[Quackers]

3. So, death by spoon or fork question, eh? nt

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. Neither of them! (I voted other.) n/t

[highplainsdem]

5. Last Sunday's poll, with about 400 responses:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287466179

[Cha]

12. Oh wow.. I did vote in that poll.. Thanks

for the update, hpd

[thesquanderer]

31. Ah, I'd missed that. Though it seems more conceivable this week than last! n/t

[highplainsdem]

40. Yes, it does. And Sanders is doing better in this poll because, judging by comments I saw, some

Sanders supporters who hadn't been here for a while returned to the board in response to my poll and other OPs about Sanders.

I still have no doubt that Bloomberg would beat Sanders, if they were the only two left in the primary.

And then Bloomberg would beat Trump.

[tritsofme]

6. Bloomberg in a heartbeat.

[womanofthehills]

67. I find this opinion article on Bloomberg concerning - does he like the dictators?

Not long ago, Bloomberg likened Putin’s attack on Ukraine to America’s annexation of California

As a presidential candidate, Mike Bloomberg has said precious little about foreign policy. His campaign website barely addresses the issue. In written responses to questions, he has put forth a centrist and moderate national security approach that criticizes President Trump for “embracing” Russian President Vladimir Putin, who meddled in U.S. elections and is “a dangerous and destabilizing force around the world.”

But before he was running for president, Bloomberg spoke about foreign policy off the cuff in interviews. The comments he made show a different side of the former New York mayor’s worldview — specifically, sympathy and understanding for authoritarian leaders and their aggressive or repressive actions. Bloomberg has already received significant criticism for saying that Xi Jinping “is not a dictator” in a September interview with PBS’s “Firing Line.” He also described the Chinese leader as “responsive” to the democratic wishes of his people.

Now another interview has surfaced. In remarks Bloomberg gave at the Aspen Institute in February 2015, he described Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, annexation of Crimea and hostility to the West as not only understandable but also equivalent to actions the United States has taken over its 200-plus-year history.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/11/not-long-ago-bloomberg-likened-putins-attack-ukraine-americas-annexation-california/

[democratisphere]

7. Ask yourself a question. Which of these 2 candidates would

appeal to the greatest number of eligible voters?! There is only one real answer: Bloomberg. Still hoping that Joe Biden will be the Democratic Candidate after we are done with the first 2 irrelevant states.

[thesquanderer]

66. re:"Ask yourself which of these 2 candidates would appeal to the greatest number of eligible voters?

Actually, you need to ask, which of these 2 candidates would appeal to the greatest number of eligible voters who won't be voting for Trump. My point is, I imagine that most eligible Republican voters would prefer Bloomberg to Sanders... but that doesn't matter if they're going to vote for Trump anyway. Of the remaining pool, I'm not sure who appeals to more voters. Though I would say that, outside the Dem base who will vote for anyone over Trump, Bloomberg and Sanders will largely appeal to different voters. I'm just not sure which group is bigger. Or in what states they are.

If it comes down to the rust belt states again, who do you think has more working class appeal... Bernie or Mike? (Keep in mind that Mike says he will put his financial resources behind the Dem campaign whether he's the nominee or not.)

[womanofthehills]

69. He definitely won't be appealing to any younger voters

No excitement to him.

[zentrum]

8. Sanders. Bloomberg used to be a

.....Republican which is way more outside the Democratic party than being a Democratic Socialist.

If Bloom can call himself a Dem---though, unlike Sanders, he never caucused with them or helped them pass bills--then surely we can support the guy who did.

[highplainsdem]

11. You really should learn more about Bloomberg, since you don't understand his political

affiliation. See this thread:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287491783


And see this:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287466663#post14

[MoonlitKnight]

13. Might as well draft Romney

Maybe he would be more “electable”.

Let me be clear - I will vote, volunteer and contribute to the Democratic nominee. But wouldn’t it be great to do so as enthusiastically as we did for Barack Obama?

I once lost out on an endorsement to my Republican opponent because he declared himself to be pro choice. Yet he was the campaign chairman for George W. Bush. Now you tell me if the freedom to choose is stronger today than it was 20 years ago. Did that organization make the correct choice by backing the more mainstream candidate?

Or 28 years ago when I ran on a platform for a single payer healthcare system for my state. I was told it was too far left and wouldn’t win the general. So I helped the party and stepped aside so our moderate candidate could win. He then got caught up in a scandal, lost the seat and 28 years later the state government is deep red and our own party still fears single payer.

I will not be afraid anymore. I will not sit back and choose “safe”. I will not allow another generation of children watch parents die due to a lack of treatment. I will not halt progress in the interest of just keeping the bad guys at bay. I am not barricading the door just hoping they will leave. It is time to fight with everything we have and for everything we believe. Choose your candidate and fight for what you believe in. Do not be afraid. Do not run scared. Be bold.

For over 220 years we have relied upon our patriots and politicians to preserve our freedom and democracy. That system is broken. The executive has failed us. The judiciary has failed us. The legislative has failed us. The press has failed us. We the people are the final hope to save this great experiment. It is our turn, and we act with our vote. Do not regret how and why you spent what may be your last meaningful act of freedom.

[thesquanderer]

32. re: "wouldn't it be great to do so as enthusiastically as we did for Barack Obama?"

I think Sanders and maybe Warren would have large groups supporting them as enthusiastically as folks supported Obama. Biden, Bloomberg and Klobuchar, not so likely. Buttigieg in the middle.

Large groups of people just don't get too excited by things that are close to the status quo... it takes transformational to do that. At least the perception of being transformational.

[Doremus]

42. So much truth, so little appreciation for it

Have we listened to so many lies that we've become unable to discern the truth?

Do the loyal democrats on DU know that Bloomberg was a huge supporter of George w Bush and the Iraq war, the bane of all of us on this very forum not so long ago?

Are they aware that Bloomberg is a large part of the reason we are strapped with a lifetime of Brett Kavanaugh?

Apparently not because as a loyal democrat I think these are deal breakers. Bloomberg is buying his way into the race to preserve the status quo of the 1% and I hope the majority of us see it before it’s too late.

[JudyM]

75. +1.

[Tarheel_Dem]

23. Didn't Warren "used to be a Republican"?

[thesquanderer]

35. Much longer ago, and never actively working to defeat Dems, AFAIK, so...

...she has less to defend there than Bloomberg does.

[Tarheel_Dem]

43. Well alrighty then....

[thesquanderer]

60. I never set any goal posts here, so I couldn't have moved them.

I was just responding to a comment, by showing what I think is a difference.

[stonecutter357]

51. lol Elizabeth Warren used to be a Republican !

[Demsrule86]

53. So was Warren. And it was political. He had the best chance too win this

way. He has never adopted GOP policies. He helped us win the house back.

[womanofthehills]

68. So, Bloomberg was originally a Dem and switched to being a Republican in 2001

Ran as a Republican for two terms - remained a Republican till 2007 - then switched back to being a Dem. I don't trust him. How will he appeal to the young? Also, WaPo just came out with an opinion article I posted above - sounded like a little Putin love.

[OliverQ]

9. So much Bernie hate on this forum.

[msongs]

10. where? I dont think he is fit to be a president but that dont mean I hate him nt

[HarlanPepper]

50. Not wanting him to be the nominee isn't the same thing as hate.

[Demsrule86]

55. He earned it. He should have been there for Clinton during the general in 16.

He shouldn`t have hired Stein supporters or celebrated an endorsement from Joe Rogan etc. That being said, I would support him if I thought he could win. He barely won a neighboring state. He has around 25% of loyal voters or maybe less now. I won't be supporting Sanders in the primary because I want to win the General. I will vote blue no matter who

[trueblue2007]

14. you get a heart !!!!!!!

[thesquanderer]

36. :-)

[Recursion]

16. God, that's just depressing enough that it probably will be the final choice

Oy

[Recursion]

18. I migrated to Klobuchar over the past week or so without really noticing

I had been Yang but now that he's fired all his staff I don't really see much point in keeping the IV drip going, as it were. And she really impressed me in the last debate.

[MFM008]

19. No

[NurseJackie]

20. Which one is the Socialist?

Not that one.

[Codeine]

22. Ugh.

That’s an unpleasant choice.

[gollygee]

24. Bloomberg because he'll beat Trump

I don't believe Sanders will. He is destined to lose and will probably try to take down everyone else with him again. Bloomberg isn't as far left as I'd like but he is better than Trump and I think can beat him. Goals 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are to beat trump.

[thesquanderer]

37. I think Bloomberg's biggest advantage is cash, but since he's promised...

...to use that cash against Trump no matter who the nominee is, I think Sanders still gets an awful lot of that benefit.

[HockeyMom]

25. Considering Bloomberg

Never thought I would ever say this. I lived on Long Island while he was Mayor and we heard a LOT about him on local news.

I voted for Sanders in the last Primary and voted for Hillary in the General. I am not voting for Sanders this time because I do not like all the nastiness and attacking the other Democratic candidates. I like how Bloomberg is only talking about himself. He is attacking TRUMP and not his fellow Democratic candidates.

Sanders, and his supporters, should not be stooping to Trump's level. Support your candidate and praise his views. If you want campaign attacks, attack Trump.

Whoever wins the nomination will be far better the The Orange One. Go out and vote for the nominee, whoever it is. Don't sit home or vote Third. Party or you will be giving an indirect vote to Donald Trump.

I will vote for Donald DUCK before I ever vote for Donald TRUMP, or just sit home because "my" candidate did not win.

[chia]

26. Bloomberg's more likely to beat Trump than Sanders. Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good.

[thesquanderer]

65. I'm not sure who's stronger against Trump, especially if we have Bloomberg's money either way.

I'll be curious to see swing state polling on how Bloomberg does against Trump. (Sanders has done well, second only to Biden.)

[chia]

70. Very curious to see how it goes here in California too!

[myohmy2]

28. Bernie...

...represents the strong Progressive direction our country needs to go...

...50 years of 1% rule is long enough...our problems are systemic and Bernie has the needed systemic solutions...

...Bernie's offering policies and programs that most of the world has adopted and implemented and considers normal and acceptable...

...it's time for the 99% to take charge...

...it's time for Bernie...

[Amishman]

29. Bloomberg is my absolute last choice

Not remotely comfortable with billionaires using their fortune to obtain political power.

Also very concerned over his past and what it says about his view of the role of government. I believe the government should protect our rights, provide essential services, and help those in need. I also believe it would respect people's freedoms - and stop and frisk, the famous soda ban, his heavy handedness with controlling NYC schools, and his clashes with labor unions suggest he doesn't get this last part

[clippership]

30. I want to say something about Mike, where he grew up, I hope it is informative.

Last edited Mon Feb 10, 2020, 12:58 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm a native Coloradan and extremely proud of where and how I grew up but I've been very fortunate to live in nearly every area of the United States. Now as it happens I coincidentally live in Medford, MA exactly 2.1 miles from where Mike Bloomberg grew up and just over five miles from the headstone of my great ancestor Mary Chilton. I often wonder what she would think of the times we live in and who she might vote for. Vote? I can imagine her sitting by her small fireplace in that tiny cottage in Plimoth initially elated that eventually her daughters of the revolution could do such a thing and then quite upset that it took so long for them to have that right. Well, we weren't even a country then, they were fighting for their lives at that time, not yet for their freedoms and voting wasn't yet a thing. We were simply a remote though heavily taxed colony of England. But hope was what it was all about in those days. It is still what it is all about - freedom.

I want to tell you something about where Mike Bloomberg grew up because I happen to live here now and I don't think many people know of this place. There are a lot of native Medford folks here, people who were born and raised in the same house where they now raise their own families. There are also a lot of people who immigrated from Asia, Latin and South America, as well as Eastern, Western, and Southern Europe. My neighbor on my right makes the best Lasagna I've ever had in my life. They are wonderfully Italian! My neighbors across the street are from Mexico and we have barbecues in the summer together, they make a great skewered shrimp. My neighbors behind me are from China and they have a fantastic garden that my Italian neighbors rave about - their veggies they say are way better than from our local Wegman's. Our neighbor next door to the Italian family is from Albania and they taught me the phrase "drago mi jega vas ne prozem." Only in Medford can you hang out with the Irish on their front porch screaming about scumbags on a Saturday and then attend a wedding given all in Portuguese on Sunday at a church that hangs two flags, American and Rainbow. This is Medford today, very diverse and well integrated but when Mike lived here I have been told it was a somewhat rough neighborhood although just as filled with hope as it is today.

Medford is the fourth-oldest neighborhoood in the United States. Jingle Bells was written here (yes I know Savannah GA debates that point, coincidentally I've lived in Savannah too on Taylor St. east of Forsyth park - another wonderfully historic area of our country). Not everyone knows that just down the street from me on the Mystic River here in Medford is where many ships were built that fought for our independence. Medford is where the very first toll-bridge (recently restored, not a toll-bridge these days) was built. Medford rum is from right here folks, in fact a hundred and fifty hears ago there was a distillery where my home is now.

Listen, you can't drive half a mile here in the Northeast without seeing a dozen American flags hanging out of the windows of houses, condos and apartments. Patriotism is in the blood here and there is no question where the football team acquired their name (we root for the Packers and get some light-hearted hell for it). I regularly walk past the graves of people who died before we were a country, right here in the center of downtown Medford. Incidentally, this is just a few minutes walk from the work that is going on as we speak to restore our local library where Mike's mom spent a lot of her time. That work is being funded in part by Mike himself. I've never seen more American flags in my life than in the Northeast (or gay pride flags for that matter outside of Castro district) and we are talking every day of every week of every year. They never come down. Whether it is the fourth of July or the tenth of February, the flags fly all year round here in New England and it does go absolutely berzerk on the fourth. I've been to D.C. many times and you can feel it there too, that deep-rooted American pride, that love of independence and freedom and awe for how far we've come. But here in Medford the feeling is distinctly a-political, but very liberal, and more of a neighborhood feeling, a feeling of if we work together no matter what we look like or who we are or where we came from we can achieve anything. Just a few minutes drive from here the slogan is "Live Free or Die." Die they did, just about a million of us over the very short time we have been fighting for independence, as we still fight - don't think complacently about that. So please do live free because there was a real cost that we paid in lives and future generations to get to where we are today.

Mike Bloomberg is not a billionaire because someone gave it to him or because he's a tyrant or because he is an oligarch or because he is some kind of king sitting on a throne on the other side of some vast ocean. He is none of those things. He is a son of Medford, a son of America. He's a billionaire because our country supports innovation, ideas, and success in a way that no other country can understand. He is the hope that makes people fly from Guam with their daughters in the hope of opening a restaurant here in America, but more importantly the hope of providing their children with great educations and an unbounded future. He's a billionaire because that's what America is, we are the land of hope and of freedom. We recognize that to build great things you have to offer great hope. Mary Chilton had to have that hope to get aboard that wooden ship and come here from across a vast ocean where more than half of a colony could perish in a single harsh noreaster. I'm a libertarian and I've switched parties to democrat because I'll be voting in the primaries here in downtown Medford for a son of Medford and a son of America. Think what you want about him, it is a free country, but I can tell you I know where he grew up, the values he has, and I know that the patriotism that runs through his veins is the same patriotism upon which this country was founded.

[Fix The Stupid]

34. ...

[fleabiscuit]

44. I also find the poll humorous as hell. nt

[Nikki28]

33. no question

about it ,Bloomberg in a heart beat.

[Gothmog]

38. Sanders is un electable

Last edited Mon Feb 10, 2020, 01:34 PM - Edit history (1)

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[thesquanderer]

74. So was Trump. (n/t)

[Gothmog]

76. Socialism will kill both sanders and down ballot candidates

Link to tweet

[thesquanderer]

78. Most of the people in the poll who say they would never vote for a socialist...

...are republicans, who will probably never vote for ANYONE we put up. You can't lose the vote of someone who you never had to begin with.

Also, people's reaction to a specific candidate do not always align with how they react to something in the abstract.

Show me polls of people saying they would not vote for Sanders in particular. I haven't seen any where he doesn't poll better than any other candidate we have other than Biden. If Sanders is unelectable., then every other non-Biden candidate is even less electable. So this is not an argument against Sanders, it's an argument for Biden, which is a different conversation.

(aside: I don't think we yet have enough polling on Bloomberg to say anything too definitive about his relative chances.)

[Gothmog]

81. trump reall wants to run against a weak and unelectable candidate like sanders

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Devil Child]

39. Never Bloomberg for me n/t

[Squinch]

79. But Gabbard's ok?

[Devil Child]

80. Hell yeah!

Should be quite clear based off my DU selection of preferred primary candidate.

[Happy Hoosier]

41. Unless it's Sanders v Gabbard...

Sanders does not get my vote in the primary. Period. Dude has burned WAY too many bridges.

[musicblind]

45. I'd have to wait for a debate before deciding.

Debates play a big part in my primary decision.

[Gothmog]

46. Poll: Americans Won't Vote for a Socialist

Link to tweet

The Democratic primary field has been the most diverse in history, featuring African-Americans, women, a Latino, an Asian-American and a man in a same-sex marriage. The lineup has Democrats bragging about how their offers represent modern America, tempered by worries about the ''electability'' of the nontraditional candidates.
]
But according to a Gallup poll released Tuesday, Americans overwhelmingly are just fine with voting for a woman, as well as a black, Hispanic or (to a somewhat lesser extent) gay candidate. The sort of candidate a majority of Americans reject?

Socialist.

The category was the only one which had a majority of Americans, 53%, declaring they would not cast a ballot for a candidate so described (45% say they would vote for a well-qualified socialist).

The numbers are a bit of a warning bell for Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-described Democratic socialist who is a top contender for the Democratic nomination for president. President Donald Trump has repeatedly thrown out the word ''socialist'' to tar Sanders, Democrats as a party, and various policy initiatives such as Medicare for All.

[thesquanderer]

47. Read the fine print.

Three quarters of Dems and almost half the independents would consider voting for a socialist. The total number looks as bad as it does because 83% of Republicans won't consider voting for a socialist... but most of them are not going to vote for ANYONE we put up.

And just because someone says today that they would not vote for a socialist, that doesn't necessarily mean they will feel that way forever.

[Gothmog]

49. socialism" is a red flag for Republicans and Republican-leaners

Link to tweet

A new Pew Research poll finds that “a much larger share of Americans have a positive impression of capitalism (65%) than socialism (42%).” The partisan gap is significant, though: “Nearly eight-in-ten Republicans and Republican leaning independents (78%) express somewhat or very positive reactions to the term, while just over half of Democrats and Democratic leaners (55%) say they have a positive impression.” The intensity of anti-socialism sentiment (63 percent of Republicans have a very negative view) dwarfs that of pro-socialism sentiment (only 14 percent of Democrats have a very positive view).....

First, “socialism” is a red flag for Republicans and Republican-leaners to a degree that “progressive” (which 40 percent of Republicans view favorably) is not. There’s not even all that much payoff among Democrats, since 33 percent of Democrats have a negative view of that term, while only 12 percent have a very positive view of socialism. If you want a Democratic nominee to have the broadest ideological appeal, the most unifying descriptor among Democrats is “progressive” (88 percent), not socialism (65 percent).....

First, “socialism” is a red flag for Republicans and Republican-leaners to a degree that “progressive” (which 40 percent of Republicans view favorably) is not. There’s not even all that much payoff among Democrats, since 33 percent of Democrats have a negative view of that term, while only 12 percent have a very positive view of socialism. If you want a Democratic nominee to have the broadest ideological appeal, the most unifying descriptor among Democrats is “progressive” (88 percent), not socialism (65 percent).

[empedocles]

52. Here we are, 2 polls, 500? responses, over 5000 views. Somehow . . . ?

Change is sometimes very difficult.

[thesquanderer]

58. Ok, but a Sanders candidacy would not be designed to appeal to...

..."Republicans and Republican-leaners."

I wrote about this in my post in the thread at https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287486770

The OP had quoted from an article that said:

Ideologues are elected more often than they used to be. Outsiders are elected more often, too. And the percentage of true swing voters is shrinking, Utych said. So does that mean someone like Sanders is more electable and someone like former Vice President Joe Biden is less electable? Electability here becomes a game of divining which group is more important to winning — swing voters or the partisan base. But that’s no more accurate than trying to estimate how sexist your neighbors are. “Which segment is bigger … there’s not great information on that,” Utych said. “Anything you say is just guessing.”

And in my agreement, I expanded on it this way:

We really don't know which group gets us more votes. Biden and Sanders (as our two extremes) would both get the vote of virtually every true Dem (certainly when the alternative is Trump). But beyond that, what gets us more votes... appealing to the moderate middle and "reasonable" Republicans? or appealing to the more extreme left partisans and the anti-establishment outsiders who want to shake things up? In 2016, we attempted to appeal to the moderate middle, while Trump went for the highly partisan and anti-establishment group. We lost that one. Something to think about.

The point is, if we end up with Sanders, that means we're going with approach B, and so appealing to Republicans or Republican-leaning independents will not be our strategy.

[TwilightZone]

56. That actually makes it worse.

The fact that 24% of Democrats wouldn't consider voting for a socialist is not good in the least. I would hope that most would get behind Sanders if he's the nominee, but we can't win a general election with 76% of Dems and under half of Independents.

[thesquanderer]

59. re: "The fact that 24% of Democrats wouldn't consider voting for a socialist is not good"

As I said, things can change. And context matters. In the context of the alternative being Trump, I think Dems *will* vote for Sanders, socialist labe or not. People can be dogmatic in principle, but tend to be pragmatic when they actually have to make a real world decision.

[Azathoth]

48. Any other year, Sanders. This year, Bloomberg

Trump is a once-in-a-lifetime catastrophe that needs to be defeated no matter what.

[honest.abe]

54. Not surprised by this at all.

I suspect that would play out about the same across the country with other Democrats.

[Movbez4]

57. Bloomberg

IMO, Bernie has very little chance of defeating Trump, I cannot envision most of the Midwest and southern states like North Carolina and Georgia pulling the lever for Bernie. Bloomberg is slowly stealing the populist message from Trump, which IMO will resonate in battle ground states.

[Duppers]

61. K & R

[Iggo]

71. The winner. (n/t)

[totodeinhere]

72. I don't think that DU is representative of the Democratic Party.

Bernie is doing much better in nationals polls than in DU polls.

[PDittie]

83. LOL

Ya think?

[totodeinhere]

84. Yea, I guess that's pretty obvious but I felt like mentioning it anyway. n/t

[Happy Hoosier]

73. Not a fan of Bloomberg, but....

a Sanders nomination will be a disaster for us. And worse, it'll set back progressive politics by decades. It'll impact the Democratic Party the way similar to McGovern did.

[stopbush]

77. I'm guessing the residual dislike of what Sanders did to the Party in 2016

is still very strong among DUers.

Sanders was out bashing Ds yesterday. Sad.

[Kaleva]

82. I think so to.

DU is considered to be much more progressive then the average Dem yet candidates like Bloomberg overwhelm Sanders in a head to head match up here.

[Midwestern Democrat]

85. I would simply abstain from voting in the primary and vote for whoever the nominee was in November.