Unfortunately, I can't.

...but I won't throw my children under the bus to make a point if he doesn't get the nomination.

...it's to correct a defective e strategy and take the risk that ends to be taken in order to create a better future for my son.

Riiiiiiiiight.

We're tired of corporate Dems holding us hostage.

I'm willing to lose, too.

I'm undecided, but all these posts from supposed Democrats saying they are "willing to lose". WTF???

Do they really want a Trump, a Cruz, a Carson, a Rubio, a Christie, a Bush, et. al. in the White House?

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Really amazed at some of the posts I've seen in the last few days.

Well played!

Those who won't fight the GOP with the rest of us can fuck off.

Last edited Sat Dec 19, 2015, 10:33 PM - Edit history (1)

and I don't need to fight them. They are my fellow Americans, just as you are (i presume).
when Clinton named the GOP as her enemy, it became crystal clear (to me), the Democratic party as run by the DNC and the GOP are fighting, but they both are enabling the bleeding white of this country.

Americans are not MY enemy, maybe they are yours.

They are attempting to gut the rights and safety net of average Americans and are certainly my enemy.

and apparently, you cannot.

Anyone vaguely familiar with the repug party knows they don't give a sh_t for anyone but the rich that they kiss up to to get money for their campaigns, which is why they do their bidding.

Please research this as it seems all new to you. Educate yourself.

Clintons do not, is what you are implying - while ignoring their connections to that same Oligarchy you profess to hate.
a wage slave is a slave nonetheless. save your pixels. educate your own self.

Vote in Trump and you'll find out soon enough.

is a neocon, enabling the MIC, which i presume you are against, and a neolib, enabling the Oligarchy, which you profess to hate.
you are confusing candidates with parties.
first you must know who your friends are.

I'm amazed that you don't know this.

Mine is the Dem nominee, either of our main candidates is heads and shoulders above anything over in the repug clown car.

You are confused.

But you'd think we would learn to stop arming the enemies of our enemies.

Republicons. If HRC wins the nomination, the Republicons will win the general. But obviously you don't care.

You suspect Clinton will lose in the general because you and your friends will be deliberately trying to make that happen.

and has everything to do with the new voters and newly political voters. Because you are doing so well, you think that other people still want the same establishment candidate? If you truly believe that Hillary and Bernie are just a hair's breath away from each other politically, then why is Bernie so popular? The simple fact is that many, many Bernie supporters will not support the establishment candidate. They are NOT doing well in this country, no matter what Obama supporters say, and just the observation at the food bank bears this out. In just one year, the people who come to the food bank has almost doubled. People are not doing well and the political establishment is the reason why, and they know it. This is why people don't vote. Why vote when nothing will change.

Bernie supporters see a chance for change, they do not see that in Hillary. Bill Clinton made things worse for a lot of people, they still haven't recovered from his Presidency. Why would you even take a chance on another Clinton? It makes absolutely no sense. This is something that Hillary supports have yet to figure out. If she is the nominee, we lose. Any way you cut it, we lose.

And those who are not firmly affiliated with a party, will vote Trump or Carson, just to vote against the establishment politician. I don't think you understand the hatred out here for the same old politician.

Z

We just have slower skis.

Hillary would pick.

Fear has done it's job in structuring so many of your posts... That, and a mean spirit.

abortions illegal, women's health care - eh, none, SS, Medicare, Healthcare - if you ain't rich, you ain't getting it.

My kids should not suffer so you can make some selfish point about a more ideal government.

Look, I would love to have a country that really stood for women, for children, for all races. One that cared about poisons in the ground water, in the air and in the food. A country that looked 7 generations down and made its policies to protect that 7th generation. A place where there was no poverty, no hunger and no greed. But we have a country that has only had one part of the congress that was not lead by the Democrats for the last 8 years. That means the Democratic party is in the driver's seat.

I admire President Obama, I voted for him twice enthusiastically. I voted for my two senators, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell each time they were on the ballot. They have been on the side that I like many times, but they have also been on the side that fills me with fear about the future. I probably won't live through that future and I am very happy that I don't have children who will. But there are people here who will have kids living through the next 70 years. It isn't looking good on so many levels and still we are asked to take change in small increments.

Frankly, we don't have the time anymore for baby steps.

I am not against breaking the system if it may be what will save all of us and those who follow.

vacancies that will come up and not just you and your son but your son's son will be screwed so let's stop this "dream candidate" wish.

If Bernie gets in do you think he will have any better luck with the obstructionist repugs than Obama has had?

Not a chance, especially with people deciding to write-in or sit out the election, which should gift wrap the House, Senate, White House and Supreme Court to the repugs.

They'll push through repeals of every provision of FDR's and LBJ's programs that created our safety net for the 99%.

Hell, they'll go back even further than that trying to "get their country back".

Pro choice and women voting? Forget that.

Immigrants staying here, they're already contracting for buses.

African Americans . . . I don't even want to contemplate what horrible crap they'll come up with.

LGBTs? Don't even think about uttering the word.

You have a bad long term strategy too. When Democrats lose because the far left wouldn't support them, they move more to the right to try to make up the votes. That's exactly what happened after 2000 and the Nader fiasco. The Democrats barely challenged Bush on anything.

If you want change like Bernie go ahead and work for Bernie. If Bernie wins the nomination the rest of the party will support him. We work together.

Was it the SO CALLED "far left" that voted in SOLID MAJORITIES *SO CALLED* "far left" propositions to raise the minimum wage in states like Arkansas and Oklahoma while the DNC UTTERLY FAILED to get majorities to support their corporate stooges as Democrats in the same election in those same states?

There's a reason why Rahm Emanuel's DCCC corporate sponsored Democrats were just about all of the Democrats that lost seats in the the midterm elections the last two times that gave the Republicans the House. That's because if a voter wants to have a candidate as corporate and to the right as a Republican they will vote for a Republican not a Democrat!

Give the voters a REAL choice to vote for someone who represents THEM and not corporatist interests!

If you have SOLID MAJORITIES then Bernie will win the nomination and the general. There's no need for a movement to withhold votes.

Instead of moving towards the minority party's right wing positions and corporate positions if the left wing RIGHTLY feels disaffected by the candidates that are there more to along with the Republican "choices" lock in support for the 1% that buys both of these parties, put forth candidates that work FOR the 99% of people, and not the BRIBERS that have paid politicians to make BRIBERY no longer a crime.

Good luck.

Quote from YOUR post:

This is about the OP's strategy of withholding votes to make the Democrats lose so that they'll be forced to reckon with those who agree with her. That strategy was already tried in 2000, succeeded in a Democratic loss, but did not force the Democrats to change to attract Nader voters. The OP's strategy didn't work. It's been proven wrong.

That's what leaving the corporations in control of our future amounts to. You either suffer now in hopes of a better tomorrow for your children -- or you hold onto whatever scraps are available at the moment and say fuck the future.

What alternative to the Democratic process are you offering?

If I have a choice between Hillary and Trump or some other clown car inhabitant, I think the choice (and the massive differences) are clear.

This (from the OP) "we will be better served if corporate democrats lose and we lose ground in the short term " is total fucking bullshit.

Real people suffer and DIE due to bad policies. Some of that will happen no matter which candidate wins. But it will happen MORE - possibly MUCH, MUCH more - if the republican candidate wins.

Even Saint Bernie (who I prefer to Hillary, by the way), will not be able to magically replace all the bad policies with perfect policies. Some people will suffer and die due to bad policies that Bernie "allows" to continue if he is elected. But it will be far fewer than if the republicans take over and load up the Supreme Court.

(Yeah I know I should be replying to the OP with this.)

Freedom to chose, and all.


Tikki

your children are going under the bus anyway.

if we get another Clinton as president, I hope you live long enough to see the results.

aren't you a pleasant one.

The other side thinks its ok to let cops kill unarmed citizens and that the Earth is 6000 years old. But you have principles or something.

Anybody who wants the Democratic Party to lose is political enemy.

If you love someone, you can't keep rewarding them for doing the wrong thing. If you want someone to be at their best, you can't shield them from consequences when they do their worst.

Republicans want Democrats to lose and I consider anybody who wants Democrats to lose to actually be Republicans whether they will admit it or not.

will hurt the very people you claim to want to help. You know, all those "regular people" who suffer in the ghettoes, who are hungry, , who need reproductive care....those people who will be harmed if you let a Republican win.

You are myopic and clearly just into fan worship, not hard-nosed politics.

It's all about Bernie and his wonderful principles...he's as much of a pol as anyone else...yeah,
raising money off a his sleazy staff is just the ticket! Purity, nobility, character...give me a break!

A lifelong politician, is your Bernie. Family on his payroll when he could do it...
Just a really idealistic miracle...not.

We can only make progress in this country by incremental change. Those are the facts....there is no huge groundswell across America for Bernie's petrie dish talk with no way to implement any of his views...

plight

I respect your decision and encourage you to do what you need to do. I will vote for Hillary.

Cute to vote for Nader?

...not do I really know what you mean by my friends. I would have to really look at that discussion to respond.

I am saying, get Bernie the Democratic nomination, or write him in.

Who not too long ago was rocking a signature vowing to not vote for Bernie no matter what, themselves.

Hypocrite stomp.

Damn, catastrophic loss of credibility. If I was MohRokTah, I'd be hanging my head in shame.

that havent voted before. That's not the case with HRC no matter how long you hold your breath. Nominate HRC and let the Republicons win the general.

Thank you!

I agree with what you are saying.

HRC as president is different from the others in degree. When the 1% take the last nickel then maybe they will get it. If this DWS situation had happened to republicans, everyone on this board would be breathing fire about her actions. I am with you, rbnyc

Last edited Sat Dec 19, 2015, 09:15 PM - Edit history (1)

...but respectfully, I mean this for the ultimate good of the party.

If my son were a heroin addict, would I be serving his interests to ignore that and focus only on the good things? Or only on how the neighbor's kid is so much worse?

It might be really disturbing to force him to confront his addiction, but it would serve him better.

It serves us better to lose while trying to address the sickness that is eroding everything we care about, than it would be to win, propping up a few delicate positives while ignoring the underlying illness.

This post is in support of a strong democratic party.

it is dangerous

And on the wrong site.

The action you propose helps no one but the republicans

I'm a registered democrat. My views are most closely aligned with democratic socialism.

If you want to discuss the merits of the strategy adjustment.t that I am suggesting, by all means. But calling me a republican is over the top, hurtful, all that alert-worthy shit. But I won't alert.

Her positions on foreign policy and the economy aren't very Democratic.

Your beloved Bernie Sanders isn't a Democrat!

To this day he is listed as an independent.

He just wants to use the Democratic Party to get elected because he knows there is no way he could even think about doing it as an independent.

Get some perspective.

He cares more about the Democratic party that 90% or the people who bash him.

if Bernie is elected. Waiting for that tombstone any minute now... Any minute...

He's said as much himself

Go Bernie!

...when. you do things the wrong way, than to continue down the wrong path. It means I want us to win in a way that positions us to challenge the oligarchy, and not to surrender to the oligarchy in advance so that we can have a hollow and poisonous win.

Do you seriously mean what you said, or are you allowing some wiggle room on it?

Are you serious that you want others to join you to make sure the Democrats lose should Hillary Clinton be nominated?

...since we are talking about a hypothetical future election. I believe supporting Bernie Sanders is the best way to work toward winning this election. I also believe that sending a message that establishment politicians cannot count on our compliance unless they are willing to divest from the enemies of social, economic and environmental justice, is a critical message for the future if our party at this time.

Thanks for clarifying.

If Ted Cruz were running as a democrat, you would emphatically defend him too strictly because if the (D).

is surrendering. What else can you call letting the opponent win?

Hahahaahahahaahaha



I actually choked on my coffee over that absurd statement.

I'm not here often enough for a lot of people to still recognize me, it it is not often that I get accused of being a Republican.

Having laughed and cried with you over the years, this post truly did make me almost drown on Maxwell House. Keep on being exactly who you are.

It can and should be countered that Corporatists aren't Democrats.

Enabling Corporists by holding ones nose and voting for them isn't being a good and obedient Democrat.

The curtain is being pulled back at DNC and DWS is not doing the party ANY favors. Quit projecting her ideals on posters here tired and disgusted by the antics there. Who really is not the Democrat?

You don't know that.

And it is not an either/or situation.

Dems don't think in black & white with their guts. THAT'S "republican"! So why are YOU acting like one?

unfortunately, sometimes the quickest way back up the hill is to roll all the way to the bottom first.

good post, and thanks for saying what many of us are thinking

I was scared about putting myself out there so strongly because I know a lot of people will attack me. Your support means a lot.

But are afraid to say so. I am close to where you are.

gonna be a rough ride, i think....

...whether to ban me right now. I really mean to be a contributor in earnest. We'll see what happens. I don't want to be afraid to say what I think is right in this community that has meant so much to me for so many years.

but its hard to imagine what you have said in a primary is against the tos. the main thing that seems to be problematic is advocating that others follow you in a decision to vote non dem, although even the tos says that in a primary season, heated discussion and threats to vote against the nom are common and not necessarily a reason for banishment. but it looks like some of the active and high profile posters, like manny, are targets.

its a fine line for sure. hang in there

As I was reading your post I could already hear some of the responses
and sure enough, DU did not disappoint.
Truth be told, I'm still not certain what course I'll take if
Bernie is not the candidate. But it will be my choice.
To all the detractors out there, of course you have ever
right to persuade rbnyc to see things your way.
But when he(?) walks into that voting booth,
that vote is his. There is no "wrong" vote.
You do what you feel is best. That is the "right" vote.
Thank you for an obviously heartfelt and difficult post.
I don't come here for the echo. I actually enjoy having my
mind changed from time to time. Means I'm growing.
Keep on keeping on.

I am a she, btw.

I have voted for Democrats who were not the Democrats I supported in the primaries pretty much all my life.

I worked for the Kucinich campaign twice.

If HRC is the nominee, I actually do understand those who choose to vote for her. The Republicans are fucking scary.

I voted for her myself when she ran for Senate.

I just want us to consider really deeply the pattern we create when we send the message that we wil always support the eventual nominee no matter how the party's values, positions, alignments, and behaviors betray us.

Honest man. Full stop.
He got gerrymandered out of a job.
I was in Marcy Kaptur's district at the time.
I'm not sure exactly how they did it but
one of these progressives where gonna go.
Then they moved the lines and I got
Bob Gibbs(R)
Please pardon the s/he, I took a shot
but I'm biased.

and threatened with punishment so we can grow up big and healthy