Social Question

josie's avatar

Why would Democrats vote for a Bourgeoise like Hillary Clinton?

Asked by josie (30926points) August 27th, 2015

The Marxist notion of conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie expresses itself in the US in the conflict between Republicans and Democrats.

Republicans, whether the judgement is justified or not, may be regarded as being the party of the Bourgeoisie.

Democrats, whether the judgement is justified or not, may be regarded as the party of the Proletariat.

Hillary Clinton is clearly a Bourgeoise.

So why would any Democrat sacrifice their principles and vote for her?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

63 Answers

talljasperman's avatar

~ Because she is smoking hot.~

josie's avatar

@talljasperman

Well… Everybody has an opinion. If hot means making me want to puke, then I get your point. Otherwise, I’m not so sure.

Cruiser's avatar

‘What difference does it make’ that she is “Bourgeois”...she is still a Democrat! Plus the fact that I guarantee you that 95% of the Democrats have no clue what a Bourgeois or Proletariat is and most of those are too lazy to look up the definition too find out the distinction and will simply vote the party ticket no matter how contradictory the candidate may be to their own values and place in life.

JLeslie's avatar

What? I think your idea of democrats and republicans might be too narrow.

ragingloli's avatar

Because the republican candidates are all little Hitlers.

josie's avatar

@ragingloli
You mean they want to murder 6 million Jews and conquer their neighbors in order to get more Lebensraum? You mean they want to kill the disabled and mentally compromised?
You mean they want to entice women to breed with a “superior race” merely for the sake of the Fatherland?
Prove it.

johnpowell's avatar

All of them are bourgeoisie. You can’t really run for president unless you are. Sanders is probably the poorest but it would take me a decade to make his net worth.

ucme's avatar

She’s a raving fucking loon.

josie's avatar

@johnpowell
If they are all members of the Bourgeoisie, how does anybody expect anything to change?

johnpowell's avatar

We don’t. We expect it to be less bad. I would argue that Obama has been less bad than Bush was so that fills my sad-hole with some hope.

stanleybmanly's avatar

the Marxist notion is NOT reflected in the American political system. It’s a BIG mistake to pretend that it is. BOTH parties are heavily committed to serving the interests of the people who bribe them, and differ only on how this goal is to be achieved. While any pretense at abstract thought has all but deserted the GOP which takes the position that the ONLY function of government is to hand over the nation’s assets to the ruling class, the Democrats at least have the sense to throw crumbs at the populace to avoid the turmoil associated with mass deprivation. The Democrats are frustrated by the failure of the Right to understand the need to throw the populace a bone now and then, the argument being that since everything goes to those on top anyway, it should at least be allowed to do a little good as it works its way upward. The right on the other hand still maintains that if you hand it over directly to the fat cats, the wealth will “trickle down”.

josie's avatar

@johnpowell
But the other side looks at it exactly the same way. Can’t change anything, so try to make it less bad. Which always begs a question. What is bad?

As you said, they are all the Bourgeoisie.

So why do the likes of you and me argue?

They want us to believe that we are the problem.

But we are not.

They are.

But they have figured out a way to make us believe that we are the problem.

Shame on them for their manipulation.

Shame on us for buying into it.

kritiper's avatar

Maybe it’s because basic party values are becoming less important than the job that needs to be done.

ibstubro's avatar

Because Hillary ‘did it’ with Bill on the artificial turf in the back of his El Camino, she is clearly the proletariat candidate.~

ibstubro's avatar

Otherwise, I’m in complete agreement with @johnpowell.

Cruiser's avatar

@johnpowell “it would take me a decade to make his net worth”
You are doing pretty well then making $200,000 per year and should be voting Republican with that kind of coin in your bank account.

ibstubro's avatar

@Cruiser that’s a tiresome nitpick.

What’s your point?

$200,000 a year in NYC is lower middle class?

janbb's avatar

@Cruiser Not everyone votes based on their income. That is a flaw in your thinking.

Cruiser's avatar

@ibstubro Just highlighting the frustrating dynamic of liberal politics where the focus is on net income and taxing the rich instead of admitting to the failed policies that has failed to provide incentive for business to invest in R&D, innovation and job creation. Voters and non-voters need to wake up to the reality that we are being lapped by China, Japan, India, Indonesia, etc. and that is where the jobs are being created and not here. Worrying about a US citizen’s net worth is totally holding a blind eye to the reality we are making matters worth by not acknowledging the hard realty of what our country faces and a hoping Hillary or a socialist solution will some how make things better will turn us into Greece overnight. I feel like I am the only one here that knows the severity of a 19 trillion dollar debt and how crippling that is to our country?!? We cannot keep kicking the can down the road.

rojo's avatar

Plus the fact that I guarantee you that 95% of the Republicanss have no clue what a Bourgeois or Proletariat is and most of those are too lazy to look up the definition too find out the distinction and will simply vote the party ticket no matter how contradictory the candidate may be to their own values and place in life.
Anyone care to argue with this statement?

JeSuisRickSpringfield's avatar

The Democrats are a center-right party, and it only ever looks otherwise because the United States establishment parties are very efficient at keeping everyone else off the stage. Talk to any actual Marxist and they will have nothing but bad things to say about American “liberals.” The simple fact is that both the Republicans and the Democrats are bourgeois parties, and most Republicans and Democrats have bourgeois sensibilities. Sure, a lot of rank-and-file Democrats give lip service to the poor and the downtrodden, but the vast majority are doing it just to feel better about themselves.

[Pause while the jellies shout “not me!” in unison.]

cletrans2col's avatar

@JeSuisRickSpringfield If you think that the Democrat party is “center right”, I don’t want what you’re smoking

rojo's avatar

I think @JeSuisRickSpringfield is being generous in placing them that close to the center.

cazzie's avatar

Remember when Hillary was trying to get a universal health care bill passed when Bill was in office? I also think these terms are being used without any true knowledge of their origin.

LostInParadise's avatar

The Republicans are not the party of the bourgeois. They are the party of the rich. Marx apparently did not have a name for them, but they can be called plutocrats. The real question is why people outside the top 1% vote against their own best interests and have subscribed to the fallacious notion of trickle down economics. The Democrats have always portrayed themselves as the party of the middle and lower classes. The middle class has been the dominant class in this country, but lately those at the top are sucking the life out of it. I am solidly middle class and have always seen the Democrats as representing my interests. You definitely don’t have to be poor to be a Democrat.

cletrans2col's avatar

@LostInParadise The whole notion of “voting against their best interests” is garbage. You vote for who represents your values the best. I’m black and a proud conservative; my issues of importance are gun rights, foreign policy, taxes, and (certain) social issues. I’m from a city that has been run by Democrats for the last 30+ years, yet it continues to rate as one of the poorest in the country. We’ve had a black president for 6+ years and the state of the black community and also poor people in general hasn’t improved. Enough of the BS.

Kropotkin's avatar

The question is nonsensical. Like with nearly everything @josie ever asks, it’s always with some ridiculously wrong premise, and/or loaded with his ideological assumptions.

The US political system isn’t some extension of a socioeconomic conflict between workers and owners.

The US political system is almost entirely representative of the owner class. It entirely represents the bourgeoisie and is their political tool. More significantly, the richest of them. The oligarchs.

The Democratic Party and Republican Party merely represent different segments of the US oligarchy, and with plenty of overlap.

Cruiser's avatar

@LostInParadise The other question to ask is why would anyone in the 1% category vote against their best interest? This debate is not as cut and dried as many here apparently assume and I can guarantee you all of these on the list have effective tax rates in the teens or less.

This is taken directly from forbes top 15 richest in America.

DEMOCRATS
D-Bill Gates 56 Billion

D- Warren Buffett $50.0 billion:

D- Lawrence Ellison $39.5 billion
D- Jim Walton 20.1 billion
D- Alice Walton 20 billion
D- S. Robson Walton 20 billion
I- Michael Bloomberg 18 billion (was a D for 20 yrs then became a RINO and is now an I):
D- Larry Page – Google – 15 billion
D- Sergey Brin – Google – 15 million

D to R – Sheldon Adelson – 14.7 billion is now 23 billion

D- George”Spooky Dude” Soros – Crime Inc,.14.2 billion
D- Mark Zuckerberg $13.5 billion
D- Dustin Moskovitz $2.7 billion
D- Sean Parker $1.6 billion
D- Peter Thiel $1.6 billion
D- Yuri Milner $1 billion
D- Eduardo Saverin $1.6 billion

REPUBLICAN
R- Michael Dell 14 billion
R- Charles Koch 21.5 billion
R- David Koch 21.5 bllion

What? You mean there are far more uber wealthy democrats than Republicans? NO Say it isn’t so.

Examine this as well: 7of the top ten richest people in congress are…... you guessed it. Democrats.

Rep. Michael McCaul (R, Texas) – $294.21 Million
Rep. Darrell Issa (R, CA) – $220.40 Million
Sen. John Kerry (D, Mass) – $193.07 Million
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, W. Vir.) – $81.63 Million
Sen. Mark Warner (D, Vir.) – $76.30 Million
Rep. Jared Polis (D, Colo) – $65.91 Million
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D, New Jersey) – $55.07 Million
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D, Conn.) – $52.93 Million
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D, Calif) – $45.39 Million
Rep. Vern Buchanan (R, Florida) – $44.39 Million

LostInParadise's avatar

One answer to your question is that in the long run more equitable taxation is in everybody’s best interest. It follows from Keynesian economics, which all the implementers of austerity programs ignore to their detriment. Industry does very well in socialist countries like those in Scandinavia, which have higher standards of living than the U.S.

jca's avatar

The Democratic nominee will get my vote. If it’s Hillary, she’ll get my vote. If she’s a zillionaire, so be it..

JLeslie's avatar

At least a nominee with tons of money has more chances of doing what they want and not what the wealthy supporters want. That’s kind of an argument for Trump LOL, but all I mean is a candidates personal wealth does not impact who I vote for.

A friend of mine said she wishes we required a credit report and score on political candidates, because that demonstrates how they handle budgets and money.

Cruiser's avatar

@JLeslie I saw Trump this morning highlighting just how out of hand the tax loopholes are for the uber rich and he included himself by saying he knows the tax code inside out and admits he takes full advantage of these loopholes. He went on to say that as President he will simplify the tax code and eliminate many of these loopholes especially the ones that hedge fund managers exploit and dodge paying the taxes they otherwise would and should. He also made the claim in how he will close loopholes he currently benefits from. He can say anything he wants right now as I am sure he realizes how much of a long-shot he is to becoming President.

DoNotKnow's avatar

There are many things wrong with what you’ve stated here. But I’ll just point out that…

There’s a common formula that people use when attacking a candidate:

1. person A is concerned about the environment
2. person A is proposing legislation to aggressively restrict pollution and encourage alternatives to fossil fuels
3. person A travels on a jet airplane when traveling the country and world trying to affect this change

And since #3 is involves contributing to environmental harm, people will assert that there is hypocrisy here, and the entire message and proposed policies are to be ignored. This could be straight up Tu quoque fallacy, although I’m not sure.

Let’s try to look at this glitch in thinking another way….

Candidate #1 is a billionaire. She has been fighting for 40 years on behalf of policies that grow the middle class and poor people. She has consistently advocated for strong environmental protection laws. She has been fighting for reproductive freedom and civil rights for decades.

Candidate #2 has a checking account with $2000 in it, and has been dipping into her retirement account to pay her mortgage on her 900 square foot house. For decades, she has been fighting for policies that hurt the middle class and the poor. She has consistently fought against environmental protection laws. And as a fundamentalist Christian, she has been fighting to restrict reproductive freedom and civil rights for decades.

Would it make sense to vote for Candidate #2 just because she is not rich? Here’s a hint: It’s not about what the candidates look like, what they sounds like, or how much money they have. The policies they are proposing are what is important. Are they not?

The average Democrat that I know (I’m not one) doesn’t care how much money the candidates have. They are also confused enough to believe that Clinton is great. They don’t particularly like her. But she’s the corporate candidate that holds positions that are better than her opponents (and of the Republicans).

But if you are truly interested in money and the candidates, it might make sense to take a look at donor lists. Check out the super pacs and the donors (Koch). Clinton does take this money, along with other corporate Democrats (why do you think TPP can pass). And they will be responsible for representing the interests of those donors once they are in power. But if both candidates in the general election have been selected by wealthy corporate interests, the illusion of choice plays out here. And the illusion doesn’t necessarily mean that there is no difference.

On a side note, I’m rather surprised that the talk of Marxism has entered its way into the American election debacle. It would be like discussing anarcho syndicalism at a golf tournament.

Cruiser's avatar

@DoNotKnow I love your little illustration you laid out and much of that is a fair question to ask as this very thing is playing out on the campaign trail and always has in the past. I don’t know how old you are but I have voted in 11 Presidential elections and in most of the recent past ones when I started paying attention to what the candidates were saying on the campaign trail, the chords they were striking that resonated with their constituent base and those passionate plea ‘promises’ that were made, seldom become reality and if they do they are a butchered version of what was promised that in many cases have little to no positive impact and often come with disastrous unintended consequences. What you see so very little of in any political race is an explanation in how they 1 will get the promise done within a divided Senate/Congress and 2 how much it will cost and how it will be paid without sending our country further into debt. We cannot conduct Governmental buisness with a blank check anymore and the candidate who will get my vote is the one who will promise to provide a balanced budget and the specifics on how they will get it passed in Congress. IMHO no other single issue is more important and no candidate is talking about it as budget cuts are pure Kryptonite to a Presidential candidate.

rojo's avatar

I would associate Clinton more heavily with the Oligarchy than the Bourgeoisie. Not that she isn’t both but more along the lines of all humans are mammals but not all mammals are human.

JeSuisRickSpringfield's avatar

@cletrans2col If you are only familiar with American politics, then the Democrats will not look center-right to you. But if you take a global or historical perspective, the United States as a whole is very much a country that exists to the right. Add to this the fact that politics have shifted to the right all over the world in the last 15 years and it should not be surprising at all that the Democratic party is a center-right party.

To take just one example, the Democrats flirted with actual socialized medicine in the 90s, but opted for a Republican-designed, market-based, industry-led approach to health care in 2010. But by that point, the Republican-designed plan was no longer right-wing enough for the people who created it and was now seen as “liberal” and even “socialist” despite the fact that it was just an extension of the managed capitalism that they had once championed so strongly.

rojo's avatar

Socialist and Socialism are not actually expletives are they?

stanleybmanly's avatar

@Cruiser. Once again, trump for all his swaggering pops up with a fact everyone knows but Jaxck, yet is absolutely forbidden for discussion in the Republican Party. I really don’t know what to make of the Donald.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@LostInParadise there you have it. The REAL reason the democrats can’t seem to resist or oppose the conservative momentum. Just as with the voters, why should anyone suppose that a club of millionaires no matter how well intentioned would be inclined to collectively vote against their individual interests?

Cruiser's avatar

@stanleybmanly Neither does the RNC. The Donald is so far outside the Republican box and ahead of the pack that they are scrambling to come up with a plan on how to react to his popularity. I have no clue what percent of legal immigrants and women who are repulsed by his attack on Planned Parenthood but you can bank none of them would even take large sums of cash to cast a vote his direction. What will be interesting to see is how he plays out with the one demographic that is really tuned into Government politics and that is the independent voter. IF he wins the RNC primary, the Donald would have to sweep the independents to have a fighting chance in the General Election.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@Cruiser Once again, I don’t think Trump a viable candidate. But if some diabolical genius or cabal of liberals were to sit in a closed room and ask the question “What can we do to render life as difficult as possible for the Republican machine?”, there is no more definitive answer than Donald Trump. It isn’t that Trump is a gift to the Democrats like guys such as Herman Cane and those other oddballs in the past. It’s that Trump is such a HUGE gift and winds up LEADING the polls. He’s a loose cannon subject to go off at any time with absolutely no regard for any aspect of “the party line.” It’s not that hard to understand the appeal of a guy who doesn’t “play by the rules”. The trouble is that since he has no need for money, THERE’S NO SHUTTING HIM DOWN. My take on Trump is that he is just too big a gift to the democrats to be believed, and I’m still not convinced that he isn’t pulling this whole stunt as a means of emphasizing the absurdities which have come to define conservative politics. Because that’s certainly the effect as I see it.

Cruiser's avatar

@stanleybmanly I really do agree with you on the point he is in the race just to shake the RNC establishment tree and highlight these bigger issues the RNC Senators and Congress who campaigned on in the mid terms….won their seats and then folded and chickened out on following through with their promises. But I see it a bit differently.

His attack is bi partisan and is highlighting weakness of both parties and IMHO will serve to undermine a lot of campaign issues Bernie has gained popularity when people start recognizing that these are as Donald would say are HUGE promises with little to no strategy of follow through and hitting hard in painting Bernie to be a weak tit as a negotiator. These ‘strategies’ of his would serve his old pal Hillary’s campaign very well as despite her baggage, she still appears tough as nails and almost as tough as the Donald. Add in the the RNC has rolled up the welcome mat on the Donald and it would not surprise me that Trump has deals in place with top Democrats and that he is doing all this just to tee it up for Hilary and his own special interests.

ibstubro's avatar

How would a credit report on a Clinton or Bush demonstrate any fiscal responsibility, @JLeslie? That sort of speaks to the OP.

I think it would be more fun to send a candidate out with a list of things needed to equip a kid for school. I remember hearing that the Kennedy’s barely knew what cash was, with someone in the entourage taking care of that end. I bet that’s more common than we realize.

JLeslie's avatar

@ibstubro To put it in perspective my friend is from the Memphis area and many of the local politicians have been a mess fiscally and thieves. Literally, winding up in jail for bribes. Anyway, she found out one or two had declared personal bankruptcy and let their house foreclose, or something like that. She figured if they can’t manage personal finances they probably can’t manage finances in general.

cletrans2col's avatar

I think it’s funny that folks here think that a Hillary win is a slam dunk. We have about 12–15 months until November 2016. She’s a Clintonista; I predict 2–3 more bombshells to hit (and that’s not even factoring in Slick Willie) before then.

janbb's avatar

@cletrans2col Not getting that read here or anywhere at this point. I’m not even sure she’ll be the nominee but don’t know who will be. My guess is that Jeb Bush might somehow win the election if he can make himself appear like a moderate Republican (remember them?)

JLeslie's avatar

@Cruiser I just realized I forgot to respond to you. I have to admit Trump keeps saying things that I agree with, God help me. When Romney was criticized for answering honestly that he only pays 13 or 15% (I don’t remember exactly) in taxes, I defended him. Why were people so angry immediately? He was working the tax laws just like other wealthy people have stated like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. The left was ridiculous in the criticism of what he paid in taxes, that wasn’t going to sway anyone away from him. What was lacking for me was Romney seemed to think the tax laws were fine as is.

Cruiser's avatar

@JLeslie For me what set Romney apart from almost all other politicians was….despite his wealth and earnings he donated over 10% of his $245 million a year of his earnings to charity compared to Biden who gave 1.7% of his earnings. So hard to wrap my head around anyone giving away 25 million a year. I recognize Bill Gates and his wife are tremendously benevolent with their money as well. If the Gov were to re-adjust the tax code to strip a Romney/Gates type of more money I think that would affect their ability to donate to their favorite causes.

JLeslie's avatar

Romney would still donate to what? The Mormon church? Maybe he made other donations, I really don’t know, and I have noting against the Mormons, but my guess is a lot of his donating did go to the church. I don’t care if there are fewer donations if our country is in less debt to the Chinese and Arab countries. You do realize a significant part if their wealth is interest income. They have a whole bunch of wealth in investments, banks, etc that of course is only taxed once. Wealth is typically much higher than income, and income is what is taxed by the fed. The state, county, and cities tax things like property and in the majority states income too, but not all.

Cruiser's avatar

@JLeslie My point is…a vast majority of wealthy people are benevolent and donate money at their discretion to causes they deem worthy. When you are taxed that money goes to a Government who IMHO sucks at distributing the funds they collect. If we allow the wealthy to have less taxes then I do believe that same money would go where it would do the most good. Trump is a perfect analogy…he and other wealthy people got to where they are by being wise with their money. They knew where every penny was spent and invested because it was THEIR money. Our Governments waste our tax dollars and then some because it is not THEIR money and rarely if ever are held accountable for this excessive spending. The last 6 years is a glaring example of out of control Government largess.

JLeslie's avatar

The last 6 years? The last 14!

I agree government can screw up spending, but people in the private sector do too. The government sometimes does great things with the money, and also so do people in the private sector. It’s not black and white. A ton of money is wasted! Non-profits make sure they spend their extra money towards the end of the year so their financials are ok. The government and people with government grants make sure they spend extra money so they can get the same amount the coming year. Lots of bullshit in the system.

Our government gives millions to Bill Gates’ initiative to rid the planet of Polio and some of his other missions. Public and private can work together.

Trump said the private health insurance companies are after profit. Another thing I was happy to hear a candidate say.

If he wins, which I doubt, I would be very interested to sit back and watch. Even if he stops running, I am very interested to hear his point of view on domestic and international matters. I do think he knows all of these people in all of these circles, and knows at least some of what is said behind closed doors. Not just the movers and shakers here, but abroad too. I do think he cares about America, and I don’t think he is obsessed with party lines. Like so many New Yorkers, a republican in New York is different than one in the south, but he sure as hell is speaking to that southern republican crowd in many ways.

Cruiser's avatar

@JLeslie The big difference is anyone in the private sector who screws up with their finances goes out of business and or bankrupt. There is a hefty price to pay if you spend beyond your means…except the private sector does not have the luxury of printing more dollar bills like the Fed does.

On your other point I am wary of “public” funding of hopeful noble projects as the past is littered with special interest boondoggles that would not garner a red cent in the private sector.

And for Trump…he is indeed speaking to the raw truths we as a country face that no career politician has the brass balls to articulate and he can do this because he has nothing to lose. If he doesn’t win the primary he gets to go back to the board room and fire a bunch of celebrities and make more millions of dollars.

JLeslie's avatar

@Cruiser the thing is the government often does have the intention of helping the citizenry. Business has the intention of making money. Don’t get me wrong, making money has invented some great things, but many of the greatest inventions were without greed, but the love of invention, self protection, or helping others.

I just think you are too black and white about public vs private.

Why are you more forgiving of mismanaged business than government? New ideas usually need tweaking in both realms. A business that is mismanaged affects the greater population. Look at the auto industry. Whole factories closed over many years, because the Americans wanted to fatten their pockets and ignored the competition. One if the best things that happened to Detroit was the major financial slump the country went into, because no one was really giving a damn about the hardships MI and surrounding states were going through. Job loss, property value slump, etc. Then, when millions around the country started going through the same people woke up, including the federal government. I’m not saying I supported everything the fed did for the banks and auto manufacturers, I’m just stating how I saw the events.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Cruiser

It’s hard for me to take Romney’s 10% “donation” to “charity” seriously, when that “charity” is the Latter-Day Saints church, who require their members to hand over 10% of their income in order to retain full privileges as members. That’d be about like me calling my USCF membership fee a “donation”.

Cruiser's avatar

@JLeslie Where do you get that I am “more forgiving of mismanaged business than government?” Nothing could be further from the truth about how I feel about both. A mismanaged business will suffer and pay the price of loss of business, fines, penalties, employee turnover, etc whatever cause and effect that mismanagement has upon that business.

On the other hand I have yet to see even one Government run entity that is obviously mismanaged suffer the same metrics a mismanged private sector company would otherwise endure. To be clear….mismanaged ANYTHING especially when it comes to the Government….drives me batshit crazy and as a business owner I have ZERO empathy for a mismanaged private company.

JLeslie's avatar

@Cruiser maybe I failed to word my answer well. My main point is mismanagement harms the American people. Not just the company, if it’s a private business, not just the employees of the company, but other Americans too; and, obviously mismanaged government harms people.

Also, the way I understand it, when a company folds up that’s one thing. When they declare bankruptcy and restructure (chapter 11) they use the courts, which is the government, to review and approve and watch over to keep the business going.

cazzie's avatar

You don’t see the wealthy people donating to the unsexy stuff like fixing over passes and bridges. Taxes need paying.

keobooks's avatar

I’m not a fan of Hillary Clinton at all. I hope she doesn’t win the nomination. She’s a habitual liar who has been caught far too many times. She doesn’t inspire trust or hope.

Also, she looks like Jack Nicholson’s rendition of the Joker when she smiles. That’s neither here nor there, but it gives her some creepiness I don’t want in a President.

If I end up having to choose between her or Trump, I’m just going to sit down and cry for a long time.

Darth_Algar's avatar

Is there a politician who isn’t a perpetual liar?

dabbler's avatar

If Hillary is the Democratic Party candidate I’d vote for her because my first choice didn’t win the nomination, and I dislike Hillary less than I dislike each of the current Republican Party declared candidates.
I think she’s a flawed politician, but in my opinion her flaws are more tolerable than the opposition.

@Darth_Algar I think, yes, there are a few. On a national level Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Wyden most of the time, Kirsten Gillibrand so far.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@dabbler

I like Bernie Sanders and will probably vote for him, but all the same he’s a politician (which alone should be cause for a healthy degree of suspicion), and not above being economical with the truth when it suits him.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther