2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMy answer to those who say they will vote according to their "progressive principles"
Good for you. We actually need people to act based on progressive principles.
Let your judgment and conscience determine your vote. If the lesser of two evils is your choice, go for it. If a third party alternative is your choice, go for it. If staying home is your choice, I would hope you consider down ballot candidates before doing so, but again it is your choice.
astrophuss42
(290 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Nor are you principled.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)But nice try with the fear mongering Danny.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Buddyblazon
(3,014 posts)makes them not progressives. And I don't take political advice from non-progressives.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)They are Donald Trump enablers, pure and simpler.
Buddyblazon
(3,014 posts)You're not a progressive. You may be a democrat. But you aren't a progressive.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)by miles, then you are not a progressive.
Buddyblazon
(3,014 posts)You are a democrat. You are not a progressive. Learn the difference. I'm a progressive. You are a democrat. You go vote for your democratic candidate and I'll go vote for my progressive candidate.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)A progressive should have no problem policy wise voting to support Jill Stein. Does that mean the progressive is supporting Trump? Do you really believe that?
Also, if you live in a solid blue or solid red state, not voting for Hillary isn't going to make any difference in the outcome. So, all the fear, fear, fear guilt tripping is just not credible or particularly appealing.
Progressives have options on how to use there right to vote and should do so as they see fit without being browbeaten by supporters of any particular candidate. It's called freedom.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Any vote other than D or R is wasted. In a parliamentary system, I'd say go for it. But there are only two choices.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)We have a winner take all electoral vote system by state (with a few exceptions). We have a number of states that are guaranteed to go for either the Democratic or republican candidate.
In those cases a vote other than D or R is not wasted at all. It can be put to good use supporting a more progressive candidate.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)state where the outcome is a foregone conclusion, doing anything but voting D is utter right-wing enabling idiocy.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)I merely pointed out you totally ignored one major scenario. Glad we agree on at least that.
I am supposed to vote for someone to keep someone else from winning? That's where we are at in our Republic? Eff that. If the potential nominee was worth anything, nobody would even be discussing voting for the "progressive" candidates.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Because if you don't, then the other person wins, and bad things happen.
If there were a ballot proposition saying "12 million people will be deported" would you vote, yes, no, or abstain?
SheenaR
(2,052 posts)I would vote no on that proposition
If my choices were 1) Bad, 2) Bad, 3) In line with my views but may not win. I am voting for #3 every time. I am not compromising my views so that I can keep #1 or #2 from winning.
I'm sorry. I vote FOR something. Not against something. If your candidate was as glorious as you all claim, I'd be on board and so would all of the others like me. Other than social issues (which she just came around to), she is John Kasich. I'm not with that at all. You wouldn't need to worry about Trump winning if she was as unbelievable as you all claim. She would win easily.
She's not though. And now you all will spend 7 months trying to guilt us or scare us into voting for her.
- Lifelong Democrat with a Captial D
DanTex
(20,709 posts)There are only two choices: D or R. Any other choice is effectively a non-vote.
SheenaR
(2,052 posts)to the position of "Supreme Commander of Who People Can Vote For", I'll take your position more seriously.
We will get what we deserve in this election.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)a progressive. But I guess if you support Clinton you are not a progressive. If you support the Ruling Class you aren't a progressive. If you support continued wars, fracking, the TPP, ending Prisons For Profits, etc., you are not a progressive.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)It takes people being pro active to get there. If we sit out an election because the candidates are not progressive enough we let the other side get a deeper hold thus putting us back.
Sitting on your principles does nothing to forward the cause.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)But as I said, each individual has to make their own decision. Your point is valid to you and many others and I respect that. However, I disagree.
Buddyblazon
(3,014 posts)I feel like helping putting someone in office that I would have to hold my nose to vote for is perpetuating crap candidates. I'd rather deal with an asshole in office for four years so my party finally gets it that we don't want milquetoast candidates. We want progress. Not this same old rehashed crap.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)it out. Suffer the status quo until your boiled. Pretend that the status quo isn't literally killing people, not rich people, but troops that The Ruling Class send into battle (Iraq) for profits for the Ruling Class, 6 children out of every 1,000 live births die from lack of proper health care in the status quo USofA. 16 million American children living in poverty and another 16 million living in low income homes that we are to ignore and vote for The Ruling Class.
We most likely have passed the tipping point of returning our democracy and/or having healthy working and middle classes, but we will not go into the night, as you suggest, without a fight.
And another thing. Look at what's happening in AZ and they are not the only state. Millions of people in this country are not allowed to vote or forced to go thru terrible hoops to vote because of the status quo that you support.
It takes a lot of nerve to demand that people participate in a process that is rigged.
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,781 posts)In my opinion being progressive means actively seeking solutions and the minimum you can do in that regard is get off your duff and vote.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Not voting is a protest. Whether it is an effective one is questionable.
revbones
(3,660 posts)Some may just view both possibilities as so distasteful, that they cannot participate in such a choice.
I think most people that are saying they'd have issues with Hillary in the general, are still planning on voting for downticket races. At least that's the impression I got.
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,781 posts)If you at least show up and vote in down ticket races your undervote tells party heads "my vote and I were right there in the polling place. You could have had it but you didn't earn it." Staying home tells them there's probably nothing they could have done to get you to vote so they'll focus on the people who CAN be stirred to vote.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)Just seems a large contingent of this site either operates off fear or the need to browbeat their common man.
revbones
(3,660 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)disenfranchisement and you think the problem is staying home. The whole voting process is horrible and rigged by the same Ruling Class that Clinton supports.
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,781 posts)SheenaR
(2,052 posts)EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)They feel so strongly that the fate of the planet is in its 11th hour. They can't in good conscience vote for any candidate with tepid proposals.
In 10 years they want to say they tried.
Honestly its probably the most pure progressive stance I've encountered and I have no counter,
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)The Democrats should be, but the tentacles of big energy enwrap them as well.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)My daughter said it won't matter in 10.years whose on the Supreme Court if fracking has destroyed our aquifer and we have no water.
She did vote for Bernie in the primary but her compelling issue is climate change and will vote for Stein in the GE.
djean111
(14,255 posts)He will not be complicit in war and fracking, etc. He did agree that the down-ticket races are important, so he will vote in them.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Any so-called Democrat vowing to stay home or vote Third Party should not be allowed to participate on a forum devoted to Democrats. That is a clear violation of the TOS. Or, am I mistaken after all these years of being here?
Arazi
(6,829 posts)I'm a Dem at this moment fyi
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)For instance if someone here decides not to vote for the Democrat at the top of the ticket but will vote for all the down ticket Democrats, should that person be banned?
I think anyone actively backing a republican candidate should be excluded, but that's about the limit.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)people to the polls is a small part of the problem.
I would point out that even getting to the polls where the votes are counted by machines controlled by the Wealthy Ruling Class, is only pretending we have a democracy.