For now I'm all about preventing Hillary Clinton from becoming the Democratic nominee.

I'm all about having a primary and getting someone more representative of traditional Democratic values.

If anyone is not committed to letting the system work and finding the best candidate, then they are unfriendly to Democracy.

Damn, I must have overslept...

All I've seen are exploratory committees like they are afraid to announce. We have a parade of right wing butthead Republicans that haven't announced, either, so I count it as small favors.

Independent or whatever else you want to call yourself Underground

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=terms of service

Last edited Mon Mar 23, 2015, 11:21 PM - Edit history (1)

There is a Independent Underground already . It's Independent Progressive Left Based in nature so don't give the OP any ideas

Thanks!

I can and will vote for deserving Dems in my state,
but if the DC Dems decide to leave the party, while
keeping its name, I think it is totally their mistake,
if I cannot go along.

The problem, which you do not address, is who decides
to give the party's support for several candidates to
run?
Do you really think that you do? Keep dreaming.
Thus, you declare anyone a "whatever", if most of
the available money goes to "their" candidate, and
quite a number of consciencious Dems don't
see that as DEMOCRATIC?

Well, well, what a new way to call it a Democratic
election, when it may nothing more than a
Selectively determined election.

See how it works?

Furthermore, I'm not going to vote for someone who, say, advocates a preemptive nuclear attack on, say, Iran, because she or he happens to have secured the Party's designation.

on DU openly advocated for the Independent Charlie Crist over Democrat Kendrick Meek. Were those FL residents who voted for Crist not Democrats? Were those here on DU who did not support Meek and actively advocated for Crist Democrats?

All technically you need to be a Democrat is to register as one. Shoot, even Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church infamy ran as a Democrat is several elections in KS.

Now, if your point is that they should not be Democrats or you prefer they not call themselves Democrats, then you are entitled to your opinion.

Oh, and btw, I do not want Hillary to be that nominee. Thankfully she isn't, so far.

you must have been one of the 300 millions who
missed it. If you wake up tomorrow morning you
and I will still have missed it.

" The Horror, the horror"!

in a smoke-filled boiler room when no one was looking.

Many vote Republican.

It is accurate to say that people who are undecided as to whether to vote for the general election are not part of the base.

What you call "Loyalty"?

Loyalty to a person, loyalty to principles, loyalty
to what DC party decides?

BTW, a lot of loyalty was part of what caused WW1

concept--if people are uncommitted as to whether they would support the party against the Republicans, whatever other organizations and principles to which they may be loyal, they would not be loyal to the party.

Examples of disloyal Democrats include Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman.

it would be disloyal not to vote for them

I asked a couple of people does that mean voting for Kesha Rogers for congress.
She was the Dem nominee for Congress in TX-22 in 2012
Would you have voted for her or would you have been disloyal

involving the national Democratic Party being majority-LaRouchie.

Simple question would you have voted for Kesha Rogers
She was the Democratic nominee
She was running for congress as a Democratic
or does the you must vote Democrat only apply to presidential races?

Other races, if it's a local extremist or lunatic, not so much.

who believed in its purpose to help the general public,
but find out that this their own party is deceiving them,
you still find that loyalty to that deception is not
only acceptable, but necessary?

Let me tell you people and their wishes have not
changed, but they know by now that no one is
listening to them. And that has shown up in the
elections, yes even in 2012. So you really are asking
them to vote for a reason of loyalty?

to begin with.

Iraq, aren't loyal Democrats. I agree.

Tell me your credentials as a Democrat and I'll tell you mine. And I may or may not support a "Democrat" in a given race.

It just isn't. And pssst, even Democrats aren't required to vote for the Democrat, they can still vote for anyone they please...(gasp)

Who put you in charge of determining who is a Democrat anyway? I didn't get the memo.

But I believe she is on a forced break for doing her job a bit too diligently, I can only assume this person "got the memo" to take up her job in an interim capacity until she is "feeling better".

That is only a guess, yours is as good as mine

When it was her mission, the label for those deemed unDemocratic (even tho registered as such) due to lack of "loyalty credentials" was "left Leaning Independent" it appears they've modified the language slightly.

They are gonna revoke anyone's membership in the Democratic party if they don't comply!

just last night! Those diamond-shaped ones! Still just as unconvincing.

Glory to the Third Way! Do not Question!

don't confuse DU with actual Democrats running for office, voting, and all that other shit real people do.

Of whatever party, no party, or not voting at all.

Sorry to say these days, since the party has moved ever to the right, that may not always be the person with the D next to their name.

We have no candidates..so what the heck are you talking about?

This is the reason why the Democratic party can't unite.

If you asked ANY Republican, their response would be they would vote for ANY non-Democratic candidate every time.
Because they know the numbers game.

Even when they don't get their number one candidate, they know that it hurts the other Party. But Dems are selfish.. it's all or nothing.

So go take your ball and go home.

Hillary is going to be the candidate. There is no real other challenger. She is not my first choice.
Let's see how many unrealistic posts get threaded here.. then we can come back after the Primary and just laugh at the herding attempts.

Really? Umm last time we checked, Hillary or no other perspective Democratic nominee candidate for POTUS has announced....unless you see and hear things us "Non-Loyal, Non-Stepping and Jiving in Line, Non Bowing at the Throne of All Things Hillary" Progressive Democrats have missed completely....

I guess you'd vote for Kesha Rogers as well

Just stop.

Same time in the cycle for 2008 everyone thought it was going to be Hillary too. What happened?

So just stop. Now.

There is a process that includes a little something called a primary. You might want to look that up. It's kind of an important thing to just skip over.

Of course they unite. I'd rather be a less useful voter to the party than a mindless lever-puller

so much for that claim. Republicans blame their candidates for losing not the voters. Romney simply wasn't conservative enough.

If the Republicans had a party leader that refused to campaign against Democrats, they would be gone tomorrow, end of story.

Zero Republicans voted for the ACA. Republicans show their respect to their voters. They would never say "who else are you going to vote for". They don't attack RW media for questioning party leaders, they listen.

A left of center candidate candidate would have a snowball's chance in hells chance of becoming the Presidential candidate. The Republican party has well defined beliefs and they stand behind them. You would never see a post like this on a Republican board.

The sarcastic posts are well deserved in this thread. Silly crap like this thread needs to be called out. The Democrats take their voters for granted and as a result, they keep losing. They have lost the House and have lost the Senate. Doing the same thing again expecting different results is insane.

it ends up driving the entire country rightward, so they're 'selfish' and refuse to vote for candidates who don't represent the same party they grew up with, that gave a damn about labour, the poor, minorities.

They don't just demand we vote for any candidate who has a 'good, Democratic record' on just one or two constituent groups, but instead demand a candidate who continues to represent ALL Democratic constituencies.

The horror! The 'selfishness'!

And then imagine if she does win the Primary.. then what will you do? head explode?

Sorry, if you have the hate thing going for you. But she doesn't reflect anything liberal as far as I am concerned.

Either Hillary or whatever 21st century version of Caligula the Republicans run, one or the other will win. Either one is poisonous. The only dif is one is fast acting and one is slow.

Good. For. You.

I'll. Alert. The. Media.


.

Candidates are not entitled to votes. They have to earn them. You don't earn them, you lose.

No point picking fights.

I am not here to champion Clinton. I am just saying that it seems to me most likely that the overwhelming majority of Democratic Underground will support the nominee (whoever it might be) in the end. That applies whether it's Clinton or Cuomo or Warren or O'Malley or any of the other names that have been tossed around.

I read your original post I replied to as coming around to voting for Hillary, especially because the OP seems to think it will be her.

I didn't think that had been decided yet.

only 565 days to the election.

Time is wasting.

2016 is NOT about Hillary, its about a 6-3 or 7-2 Scalia SCOTUS

A win is still a win, whether it's by 1 vote or 3.

in the primary.

Once we have a Democratic nominee I'll see if they are actually a Democrat or not. If they do not stand for the Democratic Party's principles and ideals I may not vote for them.

How about you go tell the Democratic Party presidential hopefuls that if they don't stand up for the people and for the Democratic Party principles that they are not Democrats, that they are moderate Republicans, Third Wayers, corporatists or whatever else they want to call themselves. Then tell them because they aren't Democrats then they cannot count on the Democratic vote. Go do that and get back to us.

I'm not a Democrat.

Even though, she is a LaRouche-ite and compared Obama to Hitler and wants to impeach Obama and thinks Obama is crazy...
She's run as the Democratic nominee as recently as 2012

I'm guessing by your post that you'd have voted for her
You would have also voted for Mark Fairchild in 1986 for Illinois Attorney General? He too was a Lyrouchie

How far do you wish to take it?

What is your line-in-the-sand for not voting for the nominee and still being a Democrat

... cuz they at least believe even their silliest clown-car candidate is better than any Democrat. I'm sure many of them voted while holding their nose. But there's the all-important wedge issues that they'll vote on no matter how awful their candidate (and/or running mate) is. There's no other way to explain how close those elections even got.

But many Democrats seem to think it's helpful to NOT vote for an imperfect candidate, like it's somehow going to teach someone a lesson. You know what Democrats' wedge issue should be? KEEP REPUBLICANS OUT OF GOVERNMENT. That's it.

Is Hillary perfect? Far from it. I'd prefer a much more reliably liberal/progressive candidate. But could I count her to at least hit the right targets more often than any -- any -- Republican? You bet.

==============

I'm uncomfortable with letting the likes of Rand Paul and Herman Cain set the standards by which we vet Democratic candidates.

But if that's the only standard left come election day, that's good enough me!

=============

Let me put it simply; If the highest virtue the Democratic party can scrape up by November 2016 is "hey, it's not a republican" then the party deserves to die.

... if for whatever reason your favorite candidate does NOT get into a general election -- ESPECIALLY for a Congressional seat -- then you must vote for whatever Democrat is on the ballot. Yes, even if it's a DINO. Yes, even if it's someone who voted for the Iraq war. Yes, even if it's a Blue Dog. And here's why:

You owe it to your fellow liberals across the country who ARE lucky enough to be sending progressives to Washington to do whatever you can to ensure that those progressive legislators are part of a majority party on Capitol Hill.

Even if I can't get a progressive on the ballot in my state, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren deserve to be surrounded by as many (D)'s as the rest of us can get there. What's better than having a couple progressive legislators in Congress? Having progressive legislators among the majority party in Congress, where those legislators have a better chance to advance progressive legislation.

So let me put it simply: a majority party controls the legislative agenda.

I thought that would be pretty obvious to all of us here.

===================

I couldn't call myself a Christian if I didn't believe in the Resurrection, I said well it's a good thing I'm not a Christian anymore. When I saw my autistic son being tortured under the Democratic education policy Race to the Top, I stopped being a Democrat. So you tell me if I'm not committed to voting for the Democratic nominee then I'm not a Democrat, you know what I have to say to that? Well, it's a good thing I'm not a Democrat anymore. I am an Independent, and if a Democratic candidate wants my vote, they will have to earn it. And might I say, it feels good to drop the Democratic label. There is so much freedom in it. I can research candidates. I can research their voting records. I can chose who to vote for based on their voting record. I don't have to vote based on what someone tells me I have to vote.

I don't give a shit what party a non-liberal claims.

Nor do i buy the "more liberal than the far right is the same as liberal" argument.

If this bothers you, might I suggest supporting a strong liberal candidate through the primary, instead of just air-humping for whoever buys the most airtime?

I know what you meant.

And occasionally it needs taking down a notch. That has become a lot harder since the GOP went full-on batshit crazy, but it still needs saying.

How long will it be before "SHE" condescends to let us know she is a candidate. All this fighting over a woman who can't even make up her mind is ridiculous.

If I were one of her supporters I'd have gone nuts already waiting.

I think I would rather vote for one of her supporters instead of "HER." They are democrats, all of them, aren't they? And they certainly know THEIR minds.

I insist on voting for a democrat, but it has to be someone who knows his/her own mind and has a grasp on the reality that people can get tired (and bored) of waiting for her/him to announce.

It's like a party without music, food, or drinks. Usually I love election year, the primaries, interviews on lots of programs, mistakes, exposes, arguments. Something in the party is definitely amiss. Wish somebody knew how to fix it.

"In the three most recent presidential elections in which there was no incumbent on the ballot, the six candidates who won their party's nomination and ran in the general election launched their campaigns an average of 526 days before the election took place.

That's about one year, five months and 10 days before the presidential election took place.

If the candidates expected to seek the presidential nomination for 2016 follow that pattern, they will begin announcing campaigns around June 1, 2015.

Here's a list of when recent presidential hopefuls have announced their candidacies:"
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/Election-2016/fl/How-Early-Will-Candidates-Announce-They-Are-Running-for-President-in-2016.htm

So the fact that few have announced as yet is not surprising at all in reality.

where we got a good idea of who would be candidates.

The Republicans are announcing so fast that I can't keep track. They love having to compele with HC because of all the lies they intend to spread about her, and the problem is the lies are based on twisted truths. Be that as it may, people will believe them.

I don't want HC for president because I believe the lies. The 3rd way is not appealing and compromising with some of those (not all) demonic Republicans is not my idea of a strong president, nor is her association with our most disliked programs.

This is pointless. You can't sell her to me cause I'm not buyin'.

You have been civil, and I thank you for that. You sound like "an Obama voter."

This place always gets this way. To be a long timer here you need to roll with it.

I have been here since 2004 fighting for John Kerry, and he wasn't my first choice, Howard Dean was.

Here's a partial list of people who were once registered as Democrats

* Lyndon LaRouche
* Strom Thurmond
* Henry Hyde
* David Duke
* George Wallace
* Zell Miller
* Joe Lieberman
* Ronald Reagan
* Jesse Helms
* Condi Rice
* Jeane Kirkpatrick
* Roy Moore
* Rick Perry

That's sort of the point.
They didn't shift out of the party and suddenly become execrable people. They were execrable people who shifted out of the party.
There was a time not long ago when voting for a Democrat in certain places meant voting for someone who was pro-labor but also pro segregation.

I hope some day that we will view the Corporacrats with as much embarrassment as we now view the Dixiecrats.

I usually post this on threads where the discussion is about ideological purity.

But there is nothing in the party rules that requires you vote before you are considered a Democrat. In fact, you must register first in accordance with State Law, even in those states that allow same day registration.

I think we should worry about voting in the primary first. Lets decide who our nominee will be.

Who do you favor in the primary?

the republicans? How about an NSA investigation? Maybe a DNA test?

So, actually, as long as you represent right wing positions, you are not a Democrat.

today that are just as tasty as the real thing". Said to someone in a movie who sought to profit from other's misery

I am committed to the good of my neighbors. Not brand worship.

Oh, and I rarely call myself, which is why I can hardly remember my number.

Said to 'Dr. Hathaway', the uptight ass who was demanding the 5 megawatt laser by mid-May so it could then be provided to the MIC to murder people on earth from space. The ultimate drone, actually.

Vermin Supreme.

Now, that may well change, assuming some of the other people frequently mentioned decide to "either shit or get off the pot," as my mother would say.

But if someone needs months of focus-group testing and "exploratory committees" to define what their marketable position should be on eating babies, that's probably not someone with the courage of their convictions anyway. Just tell us if you're for or against it, already!

The "coy" act will work for a while, but there comes a point where it starts wearing very thin, and it can change from "will they or won't they?" to "who cares?" THAT fast.

/lecture

The polls on individual liberal positions are always incredibly high.

But it would be a step up for the majority of our politicians if they actually did represent the people who elected them. There was a study out a year or two back that showed that pretty much every politician out there votes more conservatively in office than their individual district, whether Republican or Democrat. So if we went strictly on polls, we'd get at least slightly more left results than we do now.

This message paid for by Brawndo.

I was accidentally left off last election's pony distribution list, so I'm still waiting. I want my pony so I can sell him to buy things. I like money.

I have no problem leaving the party, todays party is nothing like the party of the very recent past and the Democratic Party is not really reflecting my traditional democratic values much anymore..

If you think folks like Rahm or Hillary or Crist are good Democrats worthy of voting for then you and your fellow travelers are going to have a very difficult time winning elections.

Corporate, moderate, centrist Democrats are not Democrats no matter what so folks claim they are embarrassed republicans, nothing more and their policies are just as destructive as Republicans.

And I'm not even a party member. Kind of sad, when you look at all the alleged "democrats" who aren't as loyal voters as me.

and so they promote mechanisms of chauvinism (unquestioning loyalty to group) to suggest that being pissed off enough to say 'too much' is somehow the actually cause for what's wrong.

This may not lure many pissed off people back into the fold, but for the anxious passengers riding the raft and it's rightward drift it creates rallying cries. That makes them feel better about what is after all is said and done the actual unfaithfulness of the rightward drifting candidates.

She can only win if Democratic dissenters can be browbeaten into supporting her down the line, so browbeating is the order of the day.

It's typical of the repulsive tactics she employs in general - deception and intimidation - and it's why I will state clearly in no uncertain terms that I will vote for any Democratic nominee except Hillary Clinton.

If Clinton is the nominee, I'm writing in Walter Mondale.

and was a member of the Church Committee.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026357099#post197

I think I will join you.

I'm a bit of an independent.

I think political parties should be banned.

Then he or she is not a Democrat.

I'll still vote AGAINST the Republican candidate in the general election, but PLEASE give me someone to vote FOR.

because that's what my voter registration says. It's as simple as that.

If all the neoliberals get to call themselves Democrats, then so do I.

that I'm a Democrat. I doubt that you or anyone else here are the arbiters of what I should or shouldn't call myself.

Well...I am an independent, actually. I just vote overwhelmingly for Democrat candidates, often even when a "fringe" candidate is more in line with my somewhat radical leftist tendencies. That's because the Democrat actually has a chance to win, and if my vote helps keep a Republican from winning, great. We often have very close state and local elections here in Oregon, and my vote matters.

Presidential elections? Not so much. With the (anachronistic) Electoral College, my presidential vote is pretty meaningless, as there's no chance of Oregon going "red state." If the Democratic nominee is unacceptable to me, I don't have to hold my nose and vote for them.

Neener neener neeeeener!

interventionist, schemer then you aren't a Democrat but a temporarily embarrassed Republican or maybe even just a regular ass Republican pretending at being a Democrat to move the country to the right by hook or crook.

When I first registered to vote, I was listed as an Independent. Around 1982, that was. This was later changed to Unaffiliated when the Independent party was recognized in my state.

That said, I strongly support the principles of the Democratic party -- sometimes more than the actual candidates do -- but I reserve my right to vote for the person who best represents those principles.

So, want me to vote for the Democratic nominee? Make sure it's somebody I can in good conscience vote for, because I'm done holding my nose. I'm too old and too hurt to keep voting for someone for such excellent reasons as: "well, they're better than the Republicans" or, "if you don't vote for X, then the Republicans win". I've put up with that nonsense for more than thirty years now, and I'm done. I'm not going to take some party loyalty test. Want my vote? Earn it.

But I am registered as a Democrat.

And even if I wasn't, they'd still let me in the door at the Iowa Democratic Caucus with a simple registration change signed on the spot.

Nobody ever asks me whether or not I will vote for a generic candidate.

That's just not how things work here.

Given that many here at DU have indicated they refuse to vote for her under any circumstances. Hopefully, she can bring those folks around between now and the Summer of 2016.