I will never close my eyes and vote for another corporate owned Dem again.
I am very concern what Hillary would do to our country.

Years ago I was involved with a guy that I sensed was just using me, basically not a good guy. But he was rich and very good looking and that's where my head was at, at the time. NOTE: YEARS AGO!
He would dish out a few crumbs now and then just enough to keep me around, and I'd make excuses for his noncommittal behaviors.

But I knew...& that's what the Dems have been doing to us.
From President Obama to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
I believe Hillary would be the worse!

took the words out of my mind...

How could I not, as he'd be the only actual Democrat running in the last 40 years or so.

Not only that, these times desperately call for a no nonsense guy like him, who will speak the truth to power.

But I'm not pulling for him, Warren, or Clinton in a primary - and that's that. I'll leave that up to the rest of you to bicker about those three.

Unless George Clooney runs on an independent ticket.

and it could be, perhaps, the first time I actually voted FOR the Democratic nominee rather than against the Republican.

Last edited Tue Mar 11, 2014, 10:42 AM - Edit history (1)

after I have heard his policy positions on topics beyond the domestic economy (issues that take up probably 70% of a President's time) ... possibly. If he were to survive the Democratic primary to be the Democratic nominee, absolutely. As a 3rd party candidate, after losing the Democratic primary, no f'king way.

But as of today, he is not my only choice. I am learning about some other potential candidates positions as well as his.

I don't think that's a likely scenario unfortunately, but i would.

Bryant

It's the other "you owe me" candidate that I won't vote for.

and assuming "the other 'you owe me' candidate" is HRC, are you saying that you wouldn't vote for her in the General Election over whomever is the republican candidate?

I cast it for whomever has EARNED my vote. Now THERE'S a concept! And before you go sitting on the "Alert" button because I refuse to swear blind fealty to your party and their corporate masters, I live in California and California hasn't gone for a Republican since 1984.

No one is saying your vote is anything other than your vote, to do whatever you wish with ... pointing out the myopia of certain voting "strategies" is not "swearing blind loyalty", it's an attempt to get you to see a bigger picture.

Secondly, I have been here for many a year and have yet to "alert on" any post ... that's not how I roll.

The Democratic candidate will win in California regardless of how I vote. And swearing blind loyalty has become the mantra of the authoritarians on this board. Does "I'll vote for a straight D ticket" ring a bell? The candidate can be anti-choice, anti-LGBT, pro-1% but as long as there's a "D" next to their name, they're ensured votes by blind party loyalist. You call that a "strategy," I call that swearing blind fealty.

Your point is mute. Nev'a gonna happen!

and wasn't there JUST an anti-choice Democrat elected? Somewhere in the south, I think. I'm gettin' older and my memory ain't what it used to be. The point is, there is NO WAY I could EVER vote for an anti-choice candidate. It's a deal-breaker. And there are multiple deal-breakers with Hillary, including support of the XL pipeline, support of the TPP, her coziness with the 1% and Wall Street, her support for Patriot Acts I & II, her "yes" vote on the IWR, and that's just off the top of my head. All those positions I just named, every one of them, are right-wing positions.

It's not MY job to move my belief system to he right, it's the Democrats' responsibility to give me a candidate I can vote for.

Although I might have to hold my nose while make a vote if certain candidates win...

Why wouldn't I vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election?

Glad you're here. The MOST CRITICAL goal we have is to keep the White House in the "D" column. If it flips to "R", our entire country does. (As in - lurches into Reverse.)

I would

But then again I'm going to vote for the Democratic nominee even if its a yellow dog

so that their candidate can be next up in 4 years.

any of that "certain crowd" is a myopic/petty as you would have them. Democrats will work for, campaign for, vote for the Democratic nominee ... And will lament any republican win.

I sense a bit of projection here.

I will vote for the Democrat that wins the nomination and I have no patience for anyone that won't do the same.

But I think it highly unlikely. It'd require an enormous amount of donations from little people, because the big money would be too threatened by Sanders expressed desires to rein them in.

would love it

I always vote for the Dem and against the Reep.

Reluctantly for some, enthusiastically for others.

Sanders is in the "enthusiastic" camp.

doesn't win in the primaries. I can't think of a Dem I would NOT vote for if it comes down to Dem vs. puke!

The worst Democrat is better than the best Republican.

Hmmm - seems like a pretty easy choice

Since either a Democrat or a Republican will be elected in any Presidential election, my choice is, and always has been, the Democrat.

At this point, I don't see a Republican alternative.
I don't think an Independent can do a thing either.

I say this, but I'd be happy to do so for this guy.

Volunteer, donate, ring up really rich friends and get them to donate much more, wear the tee shirt, the works.

and avoid voting for the third way democrat. I would certainly preer bernie over our current president as well. Bernie tells it like it is and stands up for the people. I love that about him. Warren and Sanders in 2016. In any order you choose, I will vote and work hard for them.

As a permanent resident, I can do most things for a political campaign... except vote.

If I get some spare cash, I may request naturalization since I have been away from the UK too long to be eligible to vote. If I naturalize in time, then I'll vote too. For Bernie as President. Or hold my nose and vote for the Democratic Party nominee if that individual isn't IMO the best... no Repub^v^v^v^v^v Tea Party nominee... ever.

ps isn't the rule on DU to support whoever the nominated Democratic Party candidate for a an elected office is (with some rare exceptions) ?

Hillary, no, I would stay home.

Don't stay home, there are other alternatives for President. The best candidates only wins if you vote for them, party loyalty is not always good for the country.

staying home means you don't get to vote for (possibly) the Democratic Representative, Senator, Governor, Council member, dog-catcher, ...

you don't get to vote for the best possible Representative, Senator, Governor, Council member, dog-catcher, ...

I think it is starting to become obvious to most that partisan politics is not good for the country. Usually the Democratic candidate is the best option, but if you don't educate yourself about all of the available candidates... well then you are an ill informed voter.

The best candidates only wins if you vote for them.

In our two party system, I will ALWAYS vote for the Democratic candidate ... because I'd far rather get 70+% of what I want/support (with the blue dog/"conserve-dem"/3rd Way candidate) than get 0% because the "best" candidate loses.

the country... not much I can say would make a difference. You do know that the only way the best candidate wins is to vote for them? Where is it written that this country has a two party system?

No more lesser of two evils, lesser is still evil.

I do know that the only way the best candidate wins is to vote for them; but I also recognize that the "best" candidate that lacks sufficient support of a majority of the electorate remains a candidate; rather than, an elected representative.

The only way the best candidate can win is if we vote for them, Bernie Sanders is getting a lot of attention lately, you never would have voted for him would you.

Two party reality? Have you looked at a ballot lately?

I rarely choose between two evils, I usually choose the best solution to any problem. You limit yourself to two solutions for all problems?

I would vote for Bernie in a Democratic primary (He changed his party affiliation to Democrat to do so) and assuming I liked what I heard from him on issues beyond domestic economic policy; or 2) if he survived the Democratic primary and was the Democratic nominee to the general election, regardless whether I like what he said on issues beyond domestic economic policy (it would have to be less evil than the republican candidate's status). But if he ran a 3rd party campaign, I would NEVER, EVER, EVER vote for him.

Nor do I pick the least evil because I don't limit myself to only the two most prominent solutions.

You don't limit yourself to two solutions? Good, and being a rational person you finally understand the only way you get the best solution is to vote for the best person. We have made progress!

No more voting for conservatives, picking the conservative over the crazy conservative still gets me a conservative. In 40 years of voting, voting for the lesser of two evils has only gotten me evil.

... if were between him and Hillary, I don't hate Hillary, but I LOVE Bernie!

Of course.

But the House? How could he deal with those sub-humans?

OH, HELIOS!

-90% Jimmy

... than a Democrat, but whatever ticket he ran on, he would definitely have my vote.

He's also a national treasure!

I'd enthusiastically support Bernie in the primary, and then I'll enthusiastically support whoever the Democratic nominee is. To do otherwise is simply an invitation to repeat the W fiasco of 2000.

He wouldn't be able to do much because of the tide of idiocy that rules Congress. But, Bernie would be a nice experiment in progressive leadership.

Hillary not so much..

And I'm someone who went to Connecticut to campaign for Ned Lamont.

with much enthusiasm.

If Bernie wins the nomination for Democrats, he'll have my vote without ever trying to campaign for it. If Rand Paul wins Republicans' primary, Bernie will win in biggest landslide election in the history of Presidential election.

oh hell yes!!

A nice Jewish boy from the Bronx would be pilloried by an element that believes he killed their lord and savior.

Without question...

!!

(that's a great big YES)

- just in case you really want my answer - OF COURSE I WOULD

Bernie would be a great choice,but the obstructionism from repubs would not allow any good legislation to go threw.

i'd work for him, give him money. . .if i were a woman, i'd let him have my baby. Okay, maybe that's going a bit too far, but you get my idea.

And then I would.

I want to win this election! We can't win without all the Democrats, many Independents and some undecided.

And Sanders is NOT even going to get ALL the Dems) Not ONE ReThug would vote for him, and the Independents won't vote for a Socialist... so HE CAN'T WIN!!! Yes I'm shouting!!! I hope you can hear me.

When we vote...we have to ask ourselves if we are helping Dems keep the Senate and the Presidency or are we being purest? WE MUST WIN this election!

Or just sit it out on principle?

If Bernie were to win the primaries ...naturally I would vote for him in 2016.
I just don't think he'd win and we'd lose the presidency and that would be a TRAGEDY! I want someone to win the primaries who could also win the election. Bernie can't do that!

Bernie is my senator and I love him dearly and I want him to continue being my senator where he's doing a lot of good. We need him there to swing this party to the left! In a National election he and all the Democrats would be scorned as a Socialist and the ReThugs would have a ball with that. I can hear them now!