General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFine I'll say it - in 2016 I'm voting with the Supreme Court in mind
There are 2 progressive judges that are getting up there in age (Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer). There are also 2 republican judges around the same age (Scalia and Kennedy).
If the next president is a republican that means he/she could be appointing 4 new judges AND possibly taking the Supreme Court from a 5-4 to 7-2.
If the next president is a democrat we could take it from 5-4 to 6-3 in our favor.
At least at 5-4 from time to time we get swing votes from Roberts and Kennedy (both republicans).
At 7-2 the swing votes won't matter. GOP will go crazy overturning everything.
And what's worse, those 4 replacements will be between the ages of 45-50 which means they will be on the bench for about 2-3 decades.
That is not an acceptable risk to me. Not one bit.
FreeState
(10,572 posts)1000words
(7,051 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)America is at stake......seriously.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)LynneSin
(95,337 posts)Our already ailing public schools will be destroyed. The fight for keeping religion out of public schools will totally be lost. We'll be teaching our children that Climate Change is a hoax and the world is 6000 years old.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)There is more to protecting education than keeping prayer and creationism out.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)This country cannot afford four more years of corporate rule.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)General election it's all about the Supreme Court
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)I don't trust any corporatist with Supreme Court appointments. The ones we have right now are actively assaulting our Constitution.
Interesting to hear you agree that promoting someone OTHER than Clinton-Sachs is "our cause." I expect, then, to hear you promoting real liberals during primary season and doing everything you possibly can with your rhetoric to expose corporatists like Hillary and make sure they don't make it anywhere near the general. That's certainly a better strategy than *starting out* with threats to try to justify voting for the corporatist, no?
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)Kiss Marriage equality goodbye if the GOP gets control
Same thing with women's rights too
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Assaults on journalism, propaganda machines, assaults on protesters, abuse of the Espionage Act. Handing over what should be powers of the people to multinational corporations.
I will not vote for candidates who will actively assault Americans and the Constitution, the democratic foundations of this nation.
The Third Way are liars, and they are malignant and antidemocratic in their policies. They have targeted the single party that used to stand between Americans and corporate predation that will murder this nation. "Lesser of two evils" is a tactic, a deliberate, serially abused tactic to ensure that this corporate subversion of our country can continue.
I can never, ever lend moral or practical support to that.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)and I read Huff Post and DU - I know those things
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)slowly boiling in the dinner pot. Not this voter.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)We have primaries and you can be rest assured I will fight hard to get the best candidate on the ticket.
But I am not someone who will 'take her ball and go home' just because my candidate loses.
Your post assumes we are skipping the primary process. Primaries is where we will have fun here at DU!
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)not voting for a democrat who favors corporations over working people and their families.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)from Women and LGBT - good for you.
Because that is what will happen.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)of Education taking my son's education away from him. I will fight for LGBT rights and women's rights but education is just as important to me as LGBT and women's rights. I will fight for my son's education. I will not fight for one and not the other.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)I know education is important but it will never get fixed with a member of the GOP but a good chance of getting better with more democrats in general.
I hope you and I fight like crazy during the primaries even if we agree on candidates - I love primary season and a good spirited debate on the issues. Right now there aren't any official candidates so I'm really talking abstract here. And when I mean fight I mean debate the issues like crazy - it's a positive thing!
In the end what really sucks is the two party system and really giving no chance for 3rd party candidates. If we changed the election process and do run offs for when no candidate makes 50% of the vote we could see more 3rd party candidates get elected.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)stand a better chance of getting better with more democrats in general. Some say well if republicans have their way they will put prayer and creationism in school. Well I say there is more to protecting education than making sure prayer and creationism do not get put in the curriculum. My special education student is expected to keep up with common core with his general education peers. I will not stand for that.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)as our candidate in 2016.
I do not trust any politicians whose records lead me to believe that they will defend mass surveillance, "Kill Lists," indefinite detention, assaults on journalism, persecution of whistleblowers, and "free trade agreements" that cede national sovereignty to profit-seeking corporations. I do not trust politicians aligned with those who repeatedly select corporatists like Penny Pritzker or Monsanto shills for high-level appointments, and whose policies repeatedly assault our Bill of Rights.
There is zero good reason to believe that Third Way Democrats can ultimately be trusted on Supreme Court appointments. Not with their record.
We need representatives who actually represent, who are less hell-bent on sucking up corporate money for a run, and more hell-bent on representing the people and reversing the massive, corporate-purchased damage that has been done to this country.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)silvershadow
(10,336 posts)to learn its' lessons the hard way, so be it.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)LynneSin
(95,337 posts)I look forward to a lively primary where we hopefully will have some great choices to pick from but in the end I'm on team Democrat in the general election.
The Dems would have to run the corpse of Adolph Hitler to lose my vote
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Hillary lobby. It's like playing whack-a-mole these days. Their foregone conclusions quite irritate my nerves. Other than that, I'm on board, being that there are really only ever two choices.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)but I like your whack-a-mole comparison.
I think Obama was my 4th choice in 2008.
In 2008 my obvious first choice was Joe Biden. When he dropped I was also keen on John Edwards and Bill Richardson. After it was down to Obama vs. Clinton I really didn't care who got the nomination because I would support either one equally.
I'll do the same thing in 2016 but first I need to see some nominees.
Looking at this list who pops to the forefront to me is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Publicly_expressed_interest
As always I'm a Biden fan. I'm from Delaware and we 1st staters can't help but support Biden even if he is older than Clinton.
I am also a big fan of Martin O'Malley. The only one I would dread the most is Joe Manchin because he really is the most conservative from the lot and clearly not a supporter of clean environment. I highly doubt he'd get the nominations.
I'm also a fan of John Hickenlooper. He fought for stronger gun controls after the big mass shooting in Aurora Colorado. He'd be a safe bet to legalize marijuana and he's good on civil rights. Not sure what is not to like baout Hickenlooper.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)I like Martin O'Malley as well, also kinda fond of Brian Schweitzer.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)I know people give heck to Hillary but she's 6 years younger than Sanders. It's also one of the reason's that I'm finding it hard to support Biden - he's only a year younger than Sanders and Biden has had health issues in the past.
I know some folks here are screaming 'ageist' but at some point it does start factoring into who you vote. I don't want another Ronald Reagan (well do any of us) who in his 2nd term pretty much was the figurehead while others actually ran the country.
Sanders may be sharp as a tack right now but he will be 75 if he were to win and take office which means he would be 79 at the start of a 2nd term. And let's face it - the older we get the more health issues we have.
I will say this, whomever wins I would love to see Bernie Sanders play a bigger role in this country. He's an awesome senator and I wish there were more like him in DC.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)I just hope the people the gop prez will kill will not charge us for the tuition, like the iraqis might someday.
riqster
(13,986 posts)See any DLC types at the food pantries after we tried your approach in 2000? Of course not. But we saw a lot of ordinary Americans start suffering.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)smallcat88
(426 posts)but she's made it clear she's not running. And everyone except Hillary Clinton looks pretty bad in the polls. Not happy about corporatists in either party but would you vote against Clinton and risk getting another Republican in the White House?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Honestly, the plethora of "Fine, I'll say it" posts that have sprung up all over DU in the wake of the original post, display a lack of imagination.
Rowdyboy
(22,057 posts)The Supreme Court is the single most important issue and it is colossal
WhiteTara
(29,713 posts)No really. I agree with you and that is why I too will vote for any democratic nominee.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)That is what they said in 2000. And who got punished? The innocents, the poor, the minorities, the women, and the powerless.
Fuck ideological correctness, too many people need the Repubs to lose.
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)No Child Left Behind.
I know the Democrats are far from perfect but even on the Dems absolutely worst day ever they are still a far cry better than the republicans
IronLionZion
(45,442 posts)and replacing a supreme court judge may happen sooner than 2016 too. And there are tons of federal judgeships and other political appointments and policy makers that would benefit from having a Dem administration.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,972 posts)Oh and fuck you Ralph Nader.
LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)That's what I did in the past two general elections.
Sirveri
(4,517 posts)The chances of us getting 61 consistent Senate votes in 2016 are slim, the Republicans would rather see nothing happen than see any Justices appointed to the Courts by a liberal. They'll just wait until they retake the Presidency, even if that takes 8 years of a 5 person SCOTUS to do it. Then the Dems will 'compromise' for the good of the country.