Sanders supporters, will you support Clinton when she wins the nomination?

I’m not American, but I do support Sanders’ views and policies. If Sanders drops out, I would never support the policies of any republican. Period.

Flag on the field: Leading question. False dichotomy. Appeal to emotion. I’m sure there are a few others you’ve managed to cram into those sentences.

Hilary is showing herself to be a complete cunt. If Sanders doesn’t get the nomination, I honestly don’t know what I’m going to do at this point.

It would be tough as a Clinton v. Trump/Cruz ballot is a choice between the lesser of two evils.

But yeah, probably Hillary. ::sigh::

It worked out so well last time. The 8-year Nader administration brought us peace and prosperity, so I won’t vote in November.

I’m a Warren supporter but I’ll vote for whichever Dem gets the nomination. I actually see plusses and minuses to each of the Dem candidates and think the internecine bashing is not very helpful.

I will vote for whoever the dem is.

Voting dem here.

I am also a Warren supporter. I am not that enthusiastic about Sanders, but I dislike Clinton. As the lesser of evils, I will definitely vote for her, assuming she gets the nomination. It will be the first time that I will vote for someone I do not like.

I’ll answer this after today. I believe the NY primary will be very close.

no

*when if she wins the nomination.
*there is no doubt she will win

@jaytkay: “It worked out so well last time. The 8-year Nader administration brought us peace and prosperity, so I won’t vote in November.”

Damn, the Nader myth won’t die, will it.

Here’s something that didn’t “work out last time” – Hillary Clinton voting for invading Iraq.

@DoNotKnowMuch Ok – I’ll bite but just once. You’d rather have Ted Cruz or Donald Trump as Pres. than 8 more years of an Obama-like administration?

the Nader myth

Math is not a myth.

Regarding the Iraq vote and everything else I don’t like about Hillary – so what? We don’t all get our own personal ideal President. Life is full of compromise.

I voted for Bernie in the primary. I will be very happy to vote for the Democrat in November.

@janbb: ”@DoNotKnowMuch Ok – I’ll bite but just once. You’d rather have Ted Cruz or Donald Trump as Pres. than 8 more years of an Obama-like administration?”

The threat that has no expiration. I have played the lesser-of-two-evils so many times. This is the one time we don’t have to actually do this, and yet…the Democrats are about to nominate someone that is nearly impossible to vote for.

The corporate Democratic party is about to prove its complete irrelevance. If…if Clinton wins this, how will progressives ever be able to vote Democrat again?

Anyway, I’m not voting out of fear any longer. And I certainly won’t be a pawn into their little game. If Democrats were not interested in seeing Trump or Cruz as president, they would have never let Clinton happen.

@jaytkay: “Math is not a myth.”

Correct. That’s why it is a myth. Democrats voted for Bush. That is how Bush was elected. Nader supporters did not result in Bush. And while you’re complaining about Bush, please remember that many of the things you may have hated about Bush are coming to you in the form of the Democratic nominee if HRC wins.

By the way, I know this is (surprisingly) in General, but the use of “Berniebros” as a tag disqualifies this as a reasonable discussion.

Nope. I see no point. She is just a moderate Republican underneath it all. I don’t believe a word that comes out of her mouth. I’ll probably vote Green. (And I realize I have options because my state will vote for Clinton.)

@Seek Of COURSE it’s a leading question with fallacies. That was the point. But thanks for answering. I was being provocative.

@DoNotKnowMuch I actually was a Sanders supporters until I saw the vitriol supporters were throwing at my Clinton supporting friends. I decided I did not want to be any part of that so I switched.

If circumstances force a choice between Clinton and Cruz of course Clinton gets the nod. The same holds true in a Clinton/Trump selection. Realistically, despite any warts ascribed Hillary, compared to Trump or Cruz, the woman is flawless, and you can bet your ass that Sanders himself will vote for Clinton if confronted with such a choice.

@stanleybmanly Exactly

Okay, People Who Hate Clinton And Think She Is A Republican And Banking Shill, if Sanders supports Clinton and tells his supporters to vote for her will you still withhold your vote?

Tough question. I hate even thinking about it, but here I am answering so clearly I have some motivation to.

I despise Hillary as much as I do Trump and Cruz. I can’t find it in my morality to vote for any of them. Maybe I’d throw in a vote for some other candidate or give a butt hurt vote for Bernie.

As to your second hypothetical situation (yeah, they’re both hypothetical by the way), let’s see what Sanders has to say first.

@Rarebear: “if Sanders supports Clinton and tells his supporters to vote for her will you still withhold your vote”

I would still not vote for Clinton. I would write in Sanders or vote for Jill Stein.

Okay, Clinton Haters. Why do you Hate Clinton?
@seek Why do you call her a “cunt”?

IF she wins, yes. I’d be a fool not to. Cruz and Trump are a special kind if scary not deserving of the White House.

@dammitjanetfromvegas You changed your name! Love that movie too.

@Rarebear I was tired of people confusing me with my husband. :)

@dammitjanetfromvegas I figured. You actually look a lot like my daughter (assuming that’s you in the avatar. I clicked on it because of the resemblance and read the profile)

No. I loathe both Hilary and Trump and am surrounded by Trump supporters that have been trying to coerce me into giving him my vote. I’ll cast my vote for Bernie or I won’t be voting at all, I am still undecided. Let the cow chips fall where they may.

@Coloma Why do you loathe Clinton? And you would rather see a Cruz or Trump presidency than a Clinton presidency?

Oh, for those of you who say they are Warren supporters, she’s not running for president. But let’s say Clinton picks her for VEEP, would you vote for Clinton then?

The joys of a two party system.

@Lightlyseared Word.

@Rarebear: “Okay, Clinton Haters. Why do you Hate Clinton?”

First, let me say that I support Sanders, and have been wishing he would would run nationally for decades. I don’t support him because he has made some convincing arguments – rather, he has always been someone who seems to be on the right side of everything I hold to be important. I’m a bit to the left of him on some things, but he certainly is far better than any candidate with this level of support in my lifetime. And the fact that he’s gained this much support for the nomination of a major party, with coverage by corporate media that goes from pretending he doesn’t exist to outright campaigning against him, is amazing. It’s inspiring that “young people” (apparently, that’s me at 44 years old) support him, and it gives me some hope for the future.

That said, I have been opposed to the Clintons since the 90s. And Hillary has made a career out of being exactly what is wrong with politics. Plenty of others play the game, but so few play it as shameless as Clinton. Why do I hate her? I don’t. I don’t even know her. Rather, I’m opposed to what she does.

She is on the wrong side of everything until forced to change. There’s nothing wrong with changing your mind, but when it’s clear that you have to be dragged there on everything, then we have a problem. I don’t support the fact that she supported NAFTA, PNTR, and was in complete support of TPP until Sanders and his supporters made it difficult for her to continue her support. I don’t like how she had to be forced to be against the Keystone Pipeline. She supported DOMA and DADT, she authorized the invasion of Iraq, she is against universal single-payer healthcare, she cites Henry Kissinger as an inspiration, she championed Bill’s welfare reform, she is not against the death penalty, does weird pandering things like propose a bill against flag burning, and is against free public college and university tuition. Among other things.

Her shift to the left on many things has been election-year politics, and she is simply shifting her positions as she does so many times. I’m left with the reasonable assumption that there this is someone without a moral compass. She shifts her positions for political gain.

And then there are speeches. She’s made millions of dollars in speeches ($200k+ for speeches to Goldman Sachs) and refuses to release the transcripts. Even worse, she (and her supporters) have been successful at taking the Republicans’ arguments for Citizens United and money in politics overall and incorporating them into mainstream Democratic thought. Apparently money is not corrupting after all, according to Clinton.

And if this weren’t enough, there are the techniques she uses to campaign. Let me give you one early example. For years, Bernie had been giving his usual defense on guns by saying that we need to stop “yelling at each other” and come up with a reasonable approach that will work for rural and urban Americans. In the first debate (I believe), he uses that same line. The next day, Clinton decides to break feminism. “I’ve been told to stop shouting about gun violence. Well, I’m not shouting. It’s just when women talk, people think we’re shouting”. So, here’s someone using and abusing the very real and valuable feminism as a political tool.

Her whole campaign is like this. If it were not for the (D) next to her name, the tactics alone would make you assume we’re dealing with a hardcore Republican. But add to this, her tendency to hold conservative values, and you’re left with someone who is fundamentally dishonest and conservative. Now that the corporate media and DNC have pushed through Clinton as the nominee (assuming Sanders gets blown away in NY), the rest of us are supposed to fall in line and vote against Cruz or Trump. Here’s the problem: I’m not a Democrat. And this whole process, with Clinton of all people winning the Democractic nomination, has proven to me that Democrats are a more immediate problem.

And yes – I did march in Boston with my wife and 6-month old daughter on the eve of the invasion of Iraq. We were not protesting Bush. We were protesting all of them, including Clinton, who made this possible.

TLDR; I don’t hate Clinton. I oppose her positions and tactics, and I support Sanders.

@Rarebear I already said in my first response I will vote for Clinton if she’s the nominee; I will vote for Bernie if he“s the nominee. Having Warren as the VP nominee would certainly thrill me but it wouldn’t change my vote.

Let’s get the pro-rape, pro-torture party back in power. They gave us the Sunni ISIS and they can do it again with the Shia in Iran. Another depression will put millions more into poverty. The Supreme Court will be majority hard-right conservative for decades.

Hillary will be so sorry. I’ll really show her!

@donotknowmuch GA. Thanks for the reasoned response.

I think not.

At the start of the campaign, I would have said Hilary is clearly a corporate candidate but far better than any of the Republican offerings (more like WTFs!), but now that Sanders has done such a great job in so many ways, and the DNC and Clinton and corporate media and so on have done so much to try to force her to be the candidate in spite of that, that I feel I need to vote against all that corrupt spite and against the entire corporate-owned farce, which they have showed includes most of the Democratic Party establishment.

Also I think I need to honor and respect all of the independents and even conservatives (including Republicans and Libertarians) and especially all the new formerly-apathetic younger voters and the general public outrage and call for change, by NOT voting for Clinton. I won’t vote for Trump or any anti-environmental or anti-abortion candidates either, though, so that means voting for whatever alternative there is. There will be at least one if Sanders doesn’t win the (D) nomination. Either Sanders or the Green party candidate, or whatever alternative emerges.

@zaku she’s not being forced upon us. She’s getting more votes.

And you would be okay with a Trump presidency? Because despite what people may wish the choice will be binary.

Interesting that no one has mentioned women’s issues and women’s right to reproductive choice yet. I don’t believe Clinton will necessarily do more on those issues than Sanders might and I wouldn’t vote for her solely because she is a woman but I will surely vote against the vile woman-hating Republicans.

Actually her being a woman is one of the reasons why I want to support her. It is time to have a woman as president.

@Rarebear The corporate media and corporate DNC elements have been doing their best to force Clinton to be the candidate, in a variety of ways. I think he’s likely to win anyway. The fact he’s been doing so well despite all that, says to me he is the preferred candidate, if it were fair. And the preference of corporate Hilary to Sanders by some, is a clear argument to not be part of that club. This campaign marks the end of support from me and many others for “lesser of two corporate evils” voting. At it marks the beginning for many others of a move from apathy to voting for actual progressive candidates, and not putting up with lies and corruption.

I would not “be okay” with a Trump presidency. But that doesn’t trump the need to reject corporate fake-liberal Clinton, especially after this campaign and the way it was handled by the media and the DNC. I won’t vote for corporate Democrats again.

@zaku but she’s getting more votes. How can Sanders win if she is getting more votes?

@janbb I almost mentioned the anti-abortion issue, but cut it to avoid noise, feeling it was covered by my mention of “WTF”. Clinton supporters have known for a long time, if they cared to pay attention, that Sanders has always polled as more likely to beat all the Republicans in the general election. It is their responsibility to wake up and back off, it seems to me, if what they really care about are the issues and not the Clinton brand name.

@Rarebear @DoNotKnowMuch Says it best. I will retract “hate”, and sub in “oppose” as well.

@Rarebear Because what is happening is nowhere near as simple as “she’s getting more votes”. Sanders started the campaign not expecting to win, and with very little name recognition or public understanding of who he is and what his policies are like. When people learn about Sanders, more often than not, they tend to like what they hear. When people contrast that to Clinton, or learn more about her, not so much. The corporate media and DNC have been trying to skew the votes for Clinton as much as possible, in a wide variety of ways. The state sequence of voting has also favored Clinton. People have not had the chance to participate, and have been excluded. The national election will also be different. And the Democratic PArty caucuses have several steps. That all adds up to a real chance Sanders may win.

@zaku the state sequence was set long ago. Do you think that Sanders should win even if he gets fewer votes?

@coloma your original verb was “loathe”. I am curious why you feel that way?

@Rarebear That’s far simpler than what I think the situation is. No, I don’t just think that my preferred candidate should win “just because”. Nor do I think he didn’t know the rules going into it, or anything like that. I think there are many ways the contest has been unfair, and also that it should be a decision that is about supporting the best candidate, most liked by the people (NOT the corporations), most likely to actually represent them well, and most likely to defeat the nutcase offered by the opposition.

@zaku that’s my point. She is the preferred candidate among those who have voted. It is instructive to understand that Bernie has done the best in caucus states, which are more disenfranchising than primary states.

There’s nothing inherently evil about Clinton. She’s just a pragmatic politician. The flaws that we percceive about her should be seen for what they are. Clinton’s success is just a clear lesson of what is currently required to negotiate a political career on what remains of the sane side of American politics.

Bill and Hillary are fascinating studies in how corrupt realities around money and self aggrandizement grind against both idealism and the public good. It is an awful and indisputable truth confronting any champion the Democrats manage to field. The Republicans, on the other hand, don’t even bother with acknowledgement that the conflict exists.

The reward for those seeking to actually confront the endemic evils in our corrupt political system is that they are always inexorably shunted to the sidelines of power as “political curiosities”. Guys like Jimmy Carter.

This is why I think it absolutely essential to back frumpy Barney Sanders, because at heart his message isn’t that evil people corrupt the political process, but rather that the game is rigged to bend anyone touching it toward malodorous endeavors.

The really heavy burden the Clintons tote is about the relentless 40 year effort on the part of the right to spin this narrative of unmitigated evil around Bill and Hillary. I can’t think of 2 people in the history of the country more accused, investigated and just plain hounded than the Clintons. Tens of millions from the public treasury have been thrown into the perpetual pusrsuit of cooked up allegations, and to what one would think the maddening frustration of those who have built virtual careers around generating this stuff, not a single charge has ever proven credible. NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM. But perhaps that isn’t really the point in dogging the Clintons. More cynically, all of the demonizing is much more about associating the word “Clinton” with “sleazy”, and this they have certainly achieved.

@stanleybmanly: “The really heavy burden the Clintons tote is about the relentless 40 year effort on the part of the right to spin this narrative of unmitigated evil around Bill and Hillary.”

I’m old enough to recall the huge opposition to the Clintons from the left (including myself) in the 90s. This wasn’t just coming from the right.

But it is true that the right and the left are not fans of the Clintons. So, it’s been a huge puzzle why the there are people who would want to see a Clinton on the ticket of their party. Just look at the unfavorable ratings of Clinton. Without the media and political machine, it would be surprising to see a Clinton win anywhere.

Honestly, if Trump is the nominee, he’ll win Florida. We have just that many idiots here.

So if Trump is the nominee, I’ll write-in Sanders. My vote won’t matter anyway, so I may as well have my protest a matter of public record.

@Seek Even if Sanders tells you to support Clinton?

Yes.

@DoNotKnowMuch is correct. I was one of the people from the left who opposed Clinton. And if all Sanders supporters were as reasoned as @DoNotKnowMuch I would have stuck with Sanders. But sadly, many are not. The online vitriol echoes Gamergate and I want no part of that.

@Seek So at the beginning of this thread you said that you were unsure what you were going to do. Now you are sure? What changed your mind?

Trump isn’t necessarily the nominee yet. and Bernie isn’t necessarily not the nominee yet.

@Seek Don’t be so fast to abandon Fla. to the cognitively challenged. And before casting that ballot, consider the sobering lesson of Ralph Nader and the real price of protest voting.

@Rarebear You’re aware you’re voting for a candidate and not a candidate’s fanbase, right?

@stanleybmanly: ”@Seek Don’t be so fast to abandon Fla. to the cognitively challenged. And before casting that ballot, consider the sobering lesson of Ralph Nader and the real price of protest voting.”

308,000 Democrats voted for Bush in 2000. Nader only received 34,000 votes from Democrats. In FL, 12% of registered Democrats voted for Bush, Gore lost his homestate of Tennessee, and only 51% of eligible voters actually bothered to vote in the 2000 elections. The Nader myth has been rebooted and doesn’t seem to want to die.

Like @johnpowell, I will vote for the Dem candidate, though I worry that Bernie might lose to a Repub candidate.

To be completely honest, I’m not thrilled with either H or B. But my dissatisfaction with them pales next to my disgust for, and fear of, Trump and Cruz.

@DoNotKnowMuch Yes, you keep posting that one Daily Kos blog article.

@Seek Please, it’s me.

@Rarebear: ”@DoNotKnowMuch Yes, you keep posting that one Daily Kos blog article.”

Ok. I’ll have to post another thread soon to see what kind of creative math people can use to demonstrate their case that Nader cost Gore the election. Never mind that this implies that it was Gore’s win that was just stolen by Nader, rather than the fact that Gore couldn’t convince Democrats to vote for him.

Ignore the article. Go look at the voting results. Just the fact that only 51% of eligible voters actually voted is enough to eliminate the never-ending Nader myth. Or try explaining away the 12% of Democrats in FL that voted for Gore. And even the fact that we are talking about FL as though the rest of the states didn’t matter. The Nader myth only survives because not the slightest bit of scrutiny has been given to it. It’s just regurgitated and perpetuated as though it’s fact. There isn’t one bit of truth to it, however. Seriously.

@DoNotKnowMuch Here is a research article from UCLA that disagrees with you.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/lewis/pdf/greenreform9.pdf

“How do our results stack up against conventional wisdom, which holds that Ralph Nader
spoiled the 2000 presidential election for Gore? We find that this common belief is justified, but our results show clearly that Nader spoiled Gore’s presidency only because the 2000 presidential race in Florida was unusually tight. Had Florida had a more typical Bush-Gore margin in 2000, Nader would not have been a spoiler.”

@Rarebear -I’m going to have to post a new thread on this later, because I would love to hear someone actually try to make the case. The data is just not there to support the case. I don’t think you have looked at the data. Just one number alone should be enough.

@DoNotKnowMuch There is no “case” to make. As you say, the numbers speak for themselves, and the UCLA research article proves it. Nader threw the election.

I’ve learned a lot about the system this cycle that I had never really thought about before.

The way everything is set up, with the delegates, and the superdelegates, and the districts, and all that, it’s more and more obvious that being a socialist in a predominately Rural-Wannabe, Christian Conservative area means that no matter what I vote, it ultimately doesn’t matter. I’m swimming left in a sea of right, in this place where “liberal” means you only go to church on holidays and don’t have a Bass Pro Shops bumper sticker.

So, whatever. Maybe in my next life (haha) I’ll be born in Sweden.

I still hold out some hope for Bernie but yes of course, Trump or Cruz would be a disaster. Bernie’s and Hillary’s senate voting records agree >90%, the differences between them are not quote as pronounced as many would like for us to think.

duplicate response edited by me.

You’re assuming that Bush/Gore is the same as Trump/Clinton.

It’s not.

@Seek (Got messed up in my double negatives)
I hope that the race is closer than you think and your vote matters. And I also hope that if push comes to shove you’ll vote against Trump by voting for Clinton.

“Okay, People Who Hate Clinton And Think She Is A Republican And Banking Shill, if Sanders supports Clinton and tells his supporters to vote for her will you still withhold your vote?”
Yes.

If it were Clinton/Warren, I might be tempted, but I will also be extremely surprised, since after, Clinton as you said, is basically a Republican in (D) clothing, and a corporate shill.

If it were Clinton and Warren, and Warren was hiding a shank behind her back, I’d be tempted.

By the way, I doubt Warren would run alongside Clinton, as she considers Clinton a hypocrite.

Yes the system is set up so that we are perpetually forced to select the lesser evil. I’ll throw my vote and even money at Bernie til the wheels fall off. But the second Sanders declares those wheels gone, I will embrace Clinton for dear life even though I recognize that our shared interests dwindle rapidly with her accumulating wealth. That wealth is acquired in no small part through promulgated measures injurious to my interests and the nation overall. But all of that is clearly irrelevant up against the threat of Trump or Cruz.

@Rarebear Hilary and her cloud of constant scandal should speak for itself. She has been on a decades long crime spree, and has her husbands reputation to live up to. haha
I don’t think “loathe” is too strong a word, but for the sake of gentility I retracted the loathe/hate and went with oppose. Maybe I should say strongly oppose, or strongly loathe, or strongly hope she keels over dead from a bullshit induced aneurysm.

@Seek I almost wrote something like that, too. Actually, I think it’s quite possible Clinton will be ejected from the campaign and/or elected office, one way or another. But I doubt she’ll pick any real liberal or progressive person as VP, as her corporate masters wouldn’t approve.

Frankly my backing of Bernie from the outset is almost an act of desperation. The cynical side of me recognizes that if he receives the nomination, his chances won’t be as good as Clinton in the same spot. But every day that Sanders is in the race, Clinton is compelled to address issues considerably left of the comfort zone of those with the bucks to buy her. And that is crucial. I think not enough people have yet understood what Bernie has to say.

@coloma You really would wish for her death?

This alleged crime spree on the part of the Clintons should be looked at objectively. As corrupt as our system is, there is no posdible way either of them could avoid indictment on ALL of these charges. As they continue to be summarily dismissed, the point must be reached where the question must be asked “Where does this stuff come from, and who is it that’s pushing it?” Things jump into focus the moment those questions are addressed.

Yes. I mean, look at the alternatives.

I will do whatever I can to prevent Cruz in the White House. People think that Trump and Cruz are equally scary. Not by a long shot.

Cruz would work day and night to establish the USA as a theocracy.

Trump has neither the brain power to even know what a theocracy would entail nor the will to want it.

Cruz knows exactly. He has been raised to consider himself “the anointed one” and that has not changed one iota over the years.

Trump is an egotistical fool. Cruz is an egotistical madman with step by step plans to implement t his vision.

She has been on a decades long crime spree

Give us the list of crimes.

@Rarebear Not really, no, just being darkly humorous, then again, if she was standing next to the Donald and he spontaneously combusted from being so over inflated and grandiose, well…it could happen, as rare as it might be. lol

Okay, so the only comparison I can make to try & rationalise this is the following:
Cameron has already said he won’t see out this parliament as pm, paving the way for a leadership contest.
Let’s, for the sake of argument, say I can vote & I choose Boris Johnson but he is beaten in a close contest by, ooh I dunno, George Osbourne. I’m then supposed, as a party loyalist, to support this odious little fucker, nah to hell with that, I abstain.

Well, for one, she was married to an adulterer @jaytkay.

Neither adultery nor being married to an adulterer is a crime.

I know that @Mariah. Just trying to get the “list” started, as @jaytkay asked. I’m curious myself.

Yes I will knowing that she is nothing less than a pre-Neocon Republican. It will be a choice between the lesser of two weasels.

But if you vote for Sanders you’re voting for Trump right? Is that what you want?

@flo How do you get that voting for Sanders is the same as voting for Trump?

My question too, @chyna. I can see, “If you don’t vote, you’re voting for Trump,” but I don’t get the Sanders part.

Bernie Sanders is the next president of the United States. Say it. SAY IT!

@jak yes. And click your heels three times and you will be transported home to Kansas.

@stanleybmanly… WOW! You hit that dead center Stan.. What most people don’t understand is that the media, though a major contributing factor, is not the only industry shilling out propaganda. The Clintons’ are no more corrupt than most on-going politicians and the only ones who learned that corruption was the wrong way to gain power are the ones now six foot under. Since it’s inception politics has been corruptible and corrupted.. there has only been one president who we regard as the least corrupt and that was Washington simply because there was no one before him to compare to but ever since if you examine the realities, it’s been an on-going corruption, mainly because you can’t satisfy all the people all the time but also it’s almost a prerequisite as our corrupt politics must compete and barter with other political corrupt nations.. Certainly it’s very wrong to direct that corruption toward your own people but that’s the way of corruption and there’s nothing we can do about it (save outright revolution) because the next political generation will say and do what ever ii takes to convince the voter to elect them while at the same time degrade and accuse the ones who can make a difference.

….IT FREAKIN’ WORKED RAREBEAR!!! Wow, what a trip!

Update.. This just in; Clinton wins NY 52%.. 43%.. Now the question can be answered in real time. Myself, back to the ‘lesser of two evils’ because there’s no way I chose the worser of evils. So which is it? Well, being an independent, I refuse to lean extreme far right.

@chewhorse No it can’t. It’s not over till it’s over.

I’m a Bernie supporter, but abso-motherfucking-lutely I will vote for Clinton if she receives the nomination. Frankly, I think anyone who chooses to do otherwise is being myopic and not full considering everything that’s up for grabs (including, most likely, at least one Supreme Court justice, possibly more).

I voted third party (Jill Stein/Green Party) in 2012, partially to try and help build the GP into a viable alternate party, but mainly because, living in Illinois, I knew there was no way Obama was going to lose this state. He could have sacrificed his daughters to Satan on live television and still won Illinois. I’m not counting on a sure-fire Democratic win in this state this time around, so you bet your ass I’ll be filling in that circle for Clinton.

@Rarebear

Let me be frank: choosing not to vote for a candidate who you otherwise support because of some of his/her supporters is a terrible reason to cast your vote on. As @Seek said: you vote on the candidate, not their fans.

Nevertheless that’s what I am doing.

@Rarebear Now I’m confused. Are you saying you won’t vote for Clinton if she’s the nominee or you won’t vote for Sanders? What did your last post mean?

@janbb – In the same breath, he’s simultaneously confirming he thinks it is stupid that Sanders supporters might write him in, while claiming to be voting for Clinton in order to spite Sanders supporters (even though he himself prefers Sanders over Clinton).

In light of the disappointing results from NY Democrats (ugh, closed primary), it might be useful to ask Democrats why they are voting in a way that makes a Cruz presidency most likely. Latest NBC News/WSJ polls show Clinton and Cruz tied in general, while Sanders leads Cruz by 12 points.

@Rarebear

Then, to be blunt, perhaps you should stay home and abstain from voting. As it is too many people vote for ridiculous reasons that have nothing to do with the issues already.

@DoNotKnowMuch while Sanders leads Cruz by 12 points.

If he gets Hillary’s primary voters.

If they have a childish tantrum and refuse to vote in November, he loses spectacularly.

@jaytkay Funny how that works both ways, isn’t it?

@jaytkay: “If he gets Hillary’s primary voters.”

Not sure if that is how this poll works. The general election polling seems straightforward, and doesn’t seem to include what you’re trying to include here.

”“And, if the election for president were held today, and Ted Cruz were the Republican candidate and Hillary Clinton were the Democratic candidate, for whom would you vote?””

But I could be wrong.

@jaytkay: “If they have a childish tantrum and refuse to vote in November, he loses spectacularly.”

Strange way to put it. Not particularly helpful or correct. If you don’t know progressives, socialists, or non-Democrats, the thought of someone not voting for your candidate may appear to be a “childish tantrum”.

@janbb – Not really sure what that could even mean.

As for the actual data, it appears that there is about a 11% difference in support. While 25% of Sanders supporters (up to 33% possibly) would not vote for Clinton, 14% of Clinton supporters say they would not support Sanders.

I’m not particularly surprised at these numbers, and would expect them to be larger. Someone who supports Clinton doesn’t seem to be someone who would support Sanders, and vice-versa.

Someone who supports Clinton doesn’t seem to be someone who would support Sanders

Every person in this thread who would vote for Clinton says they would vote for Sanders in November.

If you don’t know progressives, socialists, or non-Democrats, the thought of someone not voting for your candidate may appear to be a “childish tantrum”.

I voted for Sanders. I am well acquainted with progressives, socialists and non-Democrats.

If you’ve never worked in an adult environment.I can see how not having your way at all times may be difficult.

But that’s what grownups face every day. Other people have valid needs and wants, and the best outcome requires compromise.

@jaytkay: “If you’ve never worked in an adult environment.I can see how not having your way at all times may be difficult.

But that’s what grownups face every day. Other people have valid needs and wants, and the best outcome requires compromise.”

^ I’m just going to leave this here.

While 25% of Sanders supporters (up to 33% possibly) would not vote for Clinton, 14% of Clinton supporters say they would not support Sanders.

Meaning dead-enders staying home in November will put Donald Trump in the White House.

Attorney General Arpaio and Vice President Jerry Falwell, Jr. applaud your efforts.

Just catching up on this, sorry for the delay.

@janbb I’m saying that I’m voting for Clinton because of the behavior of the Berniebros
@Seek I realize what I am saying is illogical. I am full of contradictions.
@Darth_Algar I do stay home. I vote by mail. I fill in the bubbles on the ballot drinking a beer.

Yes, if Sanders were to pull a miracle out of his ass and win, I would probably vote for him in November. But not gonna happen. Democracy is hard.

”Democracy Oligarchy is hard.”

FTFY.

@Seek We are not an oligarchy. We are a republic. An oligarchy is Saudi Arabia—be fair.

Besides Clinton has over 2.5 million more votes than Bernie. That’s democracy.

@Rarebear – I think this question of oligarchy – and the fact that you feel @Seek wasn’t being “fair” – is very relevant to this whole discussion. Those who would consider Clinton may be surprised to hear oligarchy and U.S. in the same sentence, while those that support Sanders are quite concerned about oligarchy in the U.S., and be unable to support Clinton because of these concerns.

@DoNotKnowMuch Then vote for a third party candidate in November when Cruz is running on the Republican ticket and you’ll find out what the term “oligarchy” really means.

@Rarebear: ”@DoNotKnowMuch Then vote for a third party candidate in November when Cruz is running on the Republican ticket and you’ll find out what the term “oligarchy” really means.”

Ignoring the discussion about oligarchy for a moment, I just want to recognize your frustration. And I get it. But keep in mind that you are probably pretty confident that you are supporting the correct candidate, and you want to convince those who may not support your candidate to vote for her. Some suggestions:

- You could start targeting the near 50% of eligible voters who don’t vote at all. That’s a huge opportunity for getting voters.
– You could try to understand where independents stand on issues, and try to address their concerns. Convince them why a vote for Clinton would be the right thing to do, rather than participate in fear-mongering and the sale of the “lesser of two evils” mantra, which many of us have dabbled in for decades.
– Make sure you get Democrats to vote for Clinton. As in 2000, there will likely be a large % of Democrats who will decide that Trump is the better choice. Try to convince them.

Nah, I’m too old, and I’m too busy. I just like spouting off here on Fluther.

@Rarebear Haha, well, so far, this discussion has remained quite civilized. How to win friends and influence people, maybe not so much, as par for most political debate, but bonus points for everyone playing well with others in the political playground.

@Coloma My question was deliberately provocative and dickish because I was in an ornery mood. But look at the number of responses! It got people thinking, that’s for sure.

@Rarebear

Play with the wording all you want, you know exactly what my point is.

Yes. And I don’t care. Sanders supporters have chased me away from Sanders. My decision is made.

Taking my marbles and going home. So there! (Sticks tongue out)

I lost my marbles a long time ago.

I’m just reading and eating a sandwich at my desk. lol

@DoNotKnowMuch I want to be certain that I understand your take on this. Are you saying that you disagree with Rarebear’s assessment that a vote for a third party candidate benefits Cruz?

Did someone say beer?

I had a Trois Pistoles last night, but I’m fresh out right now.

@stanleybmanly Or Trump

@Seek Great beer. My favorite one by them, though is the Blanche de Chambly

@stanleybmanly: ”@DoNotKnowMuch I want to be certain that I understand your take on this. Are you saying that you disagree with Rarebear’s assessment that a vote for a third party candidate benefits Cruz?”

Let me describe it like this. Hope this helps:

- I’m not a Democrat.
– I have voted lesser-of-two-evils (LOTE) and third-party in the past.
– Early last year, I tried to talk myself into LOTE again, but suspected I would vote third party.
– When it became clear that Clinton was going to be pushed through as the nominee, I struggled to justify LOTE, and decided that I would likely vote third party. I have been opposed to the Clintons for decades, and Hillary is everything that is wrong with politics, in my opinion.
– When Sanders announced, I was hesitant to support him. Here’s a guy that I have been following for 20 years, and had dreamed of being able to vote for. But him running as a Democrat was quite confusing. How would he be able to maintain his integrity and politics while being part of the corporate Democratic machine. His unbelievable success in both gaining popularity and fundraising allowed me to drop LOTE and 3rd party, and actually vote for someone who actually had a shot.
– Since a Sander’s win would have meant a chance at saving the corporate Democratic party from irrelevancy, I considered voting Democratic because of Sanders.
– A Sanders loss in the primary changes nothing for me. I will either write him in or vote Jill Stein. Most likely, I’ll write him in.

Now, you’re likely thinking that if I vote for Sanders if Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I’ll be helping Cruz. There a few absurd assumptions that need to take place in order to come to this conclusion….

1. You need to ignore the fact that nearly half the eligible voting population will not even vote because they feel fed up or not represented. 50%. If there is someone to go after, it is these people.

2. There will be Democrats that will vote for Trump or Cruz. Just like the 12% of Democrats who voted for Bush in 2000.

3. I’m not a Democrat. If I’m expected to vote Democrat, the Democrats better run someone who I would be able to support. This is how it works. If the Democrats think they can survive by merely pumping out people who are “not as evil” as the Republicans, they are in trouble.

So, yes – I will not be voting for Clinton. And I will not jump through the mental gymnastics necessary to feel that my vote for Sanders will be a vote for Cruz or Trump just because I choose to not vote for the Democratic corporate candidate.

Does that make any sense?

It makes perfect sense, but it doesn’t answer the question. I fully understand your reasoning. You won’t be forced to the hypocrisy of voting for a candidate you find repulsive, regardless of the consequences. It is the consistently ethical approach and you’re welcome to it.

Clinton was not “pushed through”. She is being “voted in” by a majority of the Democrats.

This is why I’m a fan of closed primaries.

@DoNotKnowMuch Your position brings up the question: would Clinton be the democratic front runner had she behaved in a manner that would allow you to vote for her?

@Rarebear I’m suspicious of that particular assessment. It would be difficult to convince anyone watching that Clinton is not the favorite of the democratic machine. That’s another reason that I want Sanders to proceed with this thing right to the wire.

@chyna and @Dutchess_III
I hear Clinton would handily win against Trump not Sanders.
It’s a good that now it looks (or maybe it always did look) like Clinton is far enough ahead of Sanders, otherwise if too many people voted for Sanders, it may end up being between Sanders and Trump. And chances are, considering how Americans are so not crazy about socialism, Trump would win? That’s what I was thinking when I posted. But now I’m changing my mind because too many Americans are too horrified by Trump he wouldn’t win even against Sanders, I would like to think so.

@Rarebear “Yes. And I don’t care. Sanders supporters have chased me away from Sanders. My decision is made.”

Then you are part of the problem.

Yes.

@stanleybmanly: “It makes perfect sense, but it doesn’t answer the question.”

Sorry.

@stanleybmanly: “I want to be certain that I understand your take on this. Are you saying that you disagree with Rarebear’s assessment that a vote for a third party candidate benefits Cruz?”

Yes. You understand my take on this correctly. I am saying that I disagree with @Rarebear‘s assessment that a vote for a third party candidate benefits Cruz. The only way I would agree with this assessment would be if my options were to either vote for Clinton or a third party candidate. My options, however, at this point will be to vote for Sanders (as a write-in) or a third party candidate. Neither of these options would benefit Cruz.

@Rarebear: “Clinton was not “pushed through”. She is being “voted in” by a majority of the Democrats.”

Clinton was the presumed nominee chosen and supported by the DNC, corporate media (including Washington Post, NY Times, CNN, MSNBC, etc), the corporate-owned blogs (Daily Beast, Vox, etc), the entire Democratic establishment, the channel of money that has traditionally funded corporate Democrats, etc. I’m not sure how it would be possible to ignore this and skip to the whole voting part. The actual voting is far downstream when it comes to decision-making.

Nevertheless more people want her to he the nominee than Sanders.

@Rarebear I don’t think that’s true at all.

@Zaku What is not true? That she has gotten 2.5 million more votes than your beloved Bernie?

@Darth_Algar Nice dismissive cliche. I bet you have more.

@DoNotKnowMuch She was the presumed nominee 8 years ago also and she lost.

@stanleybmanly Of course she was the favorite of the Democratic party. But just because she was the favorite did not guarantee her anything. She still needed to get the votes. And she has.

@Rarebear

It’s not a dismissive cliche. You’re casting your vote based on reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with the issues. It’s as bad as the yahoos who voted for Bush because “he seems like the kind of guy you can have a beer with”.

She is the favored of the ones who have the power to hijack the system. The very fact that she is who those people want should be enough for you to look to the one who keeps having his supporters deleted from the rolls among other shady shenanigans. But by all means, cut your nose off to spite your face and vote for Hillary. That’ll learn ‘em.

So, yes – I will not be voting for Clinton

Clearly it is very important to you that Supreme Court seats are filled with people like Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. You are fighting to give us young conservative justices who will have a huge affect on our lives for decades.

Several Supreme Court seats will be open in the next few years and you are fighting to get conservatives in there to codify your hard-right values in American law.

That is a primary goal for you.

Sorry we can’t support you in that.

@Rarebear that’s evidently true. The sad truth is that the politcal landscape in this country has been so successfully shifted to the right, that the overwhelming majority of DEMOCRATIC voters believe Clinton to be the liberal candidate. Clinton is NOT a liberal, and the Republican party is threatened with destruction because Trump is not a conservative. Sanders is a Democrat and runs as one, not because he is unaware of the party’s complicity in the fraudulent setup in which we are forced to participate. If he fails to acquire the nomination, he will surely endorse Clinton and urge his supporters to vote for her, and for my money he’s sure as hell correct. The mistake in witholding your vote from Clinton is that it amounts to taking a principled stand in a process where your principles count for little and your wielding them can clearly result in the undoing of you and all you care about. There’s nothing uplifting or noble about American politics. If Sanders is out, I’ll vote for Clinton and won’t even bother holding my nose. It’s a knife fight folks and its hand to hand.

Right. The choices for supreme Court are currently Vanilla ISIS, whoever Trump likes to play tennis with, or whoever Hillary’s owners want.

Yaaaay…~

Hey Darth. I can vote for whom ever I want for whatever reason I want. Thank you for making my point.

@Rarebear

I made no point for you, and had you been paying attention you’d realize that while I’m a Bernie supporter I am no “fanboy”. I cast my vote for Sanders in the primary, in the unlikely event that he gets the party’s nomination I’ll cast my vote for him come November. If not, in the likely event that Clinton wins the nomination I’ll vote for Clinton.

What about you? If Sanders ends up the nominee will you then vote for Cruz or Trump because you don’t like “Bernie Bros”?

@jaytkay – trolling?

The choices for supreme Court are currently Vanilla ISIS, whoever Trump likes to play tennis with, or whoever Hillary’s owners want.

Sorry to hear you hate you hate Ginsburg, a Clinton appointee. You should look into her voting history and writing. I’m pretty sure she’d have closer views to yours than the Thomas- and Alito-type justices that you want on the bench.

trolling

It’s not trolling to point out simple facts. We get it. Roberts and Scalia are your favorites. You want more Republican appointees.

You will swoon when we get Justice Roy Moore!

Darth. Of course I would vote for Bernie. Cruz or Trump would be a disaster of epic proportions. I am many things but an idiot is not one of them.

I’m drinking Old Mil light and wondering if Bernie should run as an Independent.

@jaytkay: “It’s not trolling to point out simple facts. We get it. Roberts and Scalia are your favorites. You want more Republican appointees.

You will swoon when we get Justice Roy Moore!”

Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton. She does not get credit for the Notorious RBG.

Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton. She does not get credit for the Notorious RBG.

Maybe. She certainly had an advisory role.

Regardless, the Republicans thank you for working to get us judges like Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts. Good job!!

How can anybody hate Ginsburg? She’s brilliant. That woman rocks!

How can anybody hate Ginsburg?

She’s liberal. The Bernie people who refuse to vote in November can’t abide that.

They are deeply committed to giving us another Scalia and another Thomas. Probably another Alito, too.

I get that if someone is a conservative they wouldn’t like RBG. I just didn’t understand how a liberal would not.

FWIW I was a Scalia fan. I rarely agreed with his decisions but I’ve heard lectures by him and he had a keen mind and a sharp wit. And he was good friends with RBG as well.

Jay, I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

I will always vote. Always.

I will vote for who I choose to, not necessarily who I’m told to.

I’m entering the conversation late and haven’t read all of the responses. Please forgive any redundancy.

4 months ago I would have said a resounding “Yes.”

I’ve really soured on Hilary after seeing her respond to Bernie. It would have been one thing if she actually shifted her position to the left, but instead she played politics, pretended to be further left than Bernie, and will now shift right going into the general election.

Without being too conspiracy theoryish, there are a lot of powerful people who really don’t want a political revolution like the one Bernie is proposing, and they own most of the press in this country. The coverage has been incredibly biased against Bernie.

Returning to the central question, I’m very conflicted about what to do with my vote in November. I live in Virginia, which is a swing state. On one hand, the Republicans are horrible, but on the other allowing the Democratic party to shift so far to the right via Clinton is almost worse (She’s pro fracking, pro private prisons, pro trade partnerships, pro wall street, against a carbon tax, etc.). By loosing the election in November, several important things would happen:

1. It sends a strong message to the Democratic National Party that playing nice with big money isn’t a tenable position going forward and force a deep and serious introspection among the party leadership.

2. We get a lunatic in the Whitehouse who will probably do a ton of damage to the country, which leads to 3.

3. It makes it much more likely that this popular movement can take the Whitehouse and congress in 2020, possibly with Elizabeth Warren at the top of the ticket.

This is a very risky calculation that weighs the long term health of the country above the short-term health—almost like Chemo/Radiation as a radical course of treatment to try to save a patient’s life. I’m not saying I’m going to take this approach, but there is a logic to it.

The hell? What liberal in this thread doesn’t like Ginsberg?

@gorillapaws That’s not a gamble I personally am willing to take. I’m going to state the obvious and say that similar liberals were in this situation in the Gore/Bush election and chose Nader. War resulted. Revolutions rarely happen how people envision. We have to keep the nut jobs out of power.

^ @Rarebear – If you’re unwilling to put the slightest effort into understanding what you are saying re: Nader, why are you so comfortable repeatedly bringing it up?

@Darth_Algar: “The hell? What liberal in this thread doesn’t like Ginsberg?”

There was some late-night trolling going on last night. Everyone likes Ginsberg.

@Rarebear Those all are very fair points you make. I know your profession requires you to constantly have to evaluate difficult choices between several unappealing options. I have a lot of respect for someone with the experience making those judgments as often as you do.

Having said that, I have some very serious existential concerns about this planet and it’s environment. We are in a car speeding towards a cliff at 60 mph. If our president is able to slow us to 55 mph for another 8 years, then the damage may already be too severe. It may be better to elect a scumbag who will floor it to 70 mph for 4 years, if that leads to electing a president who will not just change the speed, but change directions away from the cliff entirely.

Another example is our healthcare system. We’re seeing major health insurance companies attempting to merge into just 3 major companies. We’re heading towards a single-payer system, only it’s one where that single payer is a for-profit insurance company with the only goal of getting richer and not maximizing the health of the American people. I frankly cannot think of a more perverse outcome for our healthcare system.

Those are just a couple of examples but there are plenty of others. Like I said, I’m not 100% convinced of this approach, but I think there are some merits which should be weighted carefully against the points you make.

The hell? What liberal in this thread doesn’t like Ginsberg?

The “liberal” Clinton haters here are dedicated to getting a Republican into the White House. It’s evident what their game is.

Ginsburg will likely retire or expire in the next four years.

Replacing her with a reliable hard-right conservative will assure more campaign financing decisions like McCutcheon and Citizens United, giving corporations primary control of US elections.

@DoNotKnowMuch I did put effort in it. And I proved the point, which I’ve shown you twice, a scholarly well research independant thesis, not a left wing blog post. Your mind is made up, I realize, so I won’t throw the facts at you any more.

@gorillapaws I’m not willing to destroy this country in order to potentially save it. I worry too much about women’s reproductive rights, science education, climate change, immigration, and extremism to give the reins of government to either an egomaniacal buffoon, or an insane dominionist Christian.

@Rarebear: ”@DoNotKnowMuch I did put effort in it. And I proved the point, which I’ve shown you twice, a scholarly well research independant thesis, not a left wing blog post. Your mind is made up, I realize, so I won’t throw the facts at you any more.”

I told you to scrap the “blog post”. I want you to do the most basic of reasoning to explain to me something that is so often stated by you. This should be a piece of cake. I mean, you have the basic numbers that you can show me very easily. It should take you 30 seconds. I created that whole other thread for you, expecting you to be reasonable and show that you’ve actually put some effort in. Instead, you did a google search and pasted a link.

I can even help you with starting this project, and it shouldn’t take you very long. It could go something like this: You state your case why FL was the deciding factor in the election. Then you provide the data showing that if Nader hadn’t run, Bush would have won. It’s simple. Of course, I’ll have some follow-up, but that’s how discussion works.

I’m not saying I’m going to take this approach, but there is a logic to it.

The logic that made torture an American value. The logic that got 100,000 people killed in Iraq and directly led to the rise of ISIS. The logic that gave us Hobby Lobby and Citizens United.

The idea that giving us another Republican will wake up the sheeple has been proven wrong.

@Rarebear ”..... My question was deliberately provocative and dickish because I was in an ornery mood…” Jesus. The last time I did that I was beaten severely about the head and shoulders for SIX MONTHS!!! It was a question that had to do with pajamas….and slippers….and potato chips….

^ Oh, I miss that thread.

@donotknowmuch. You must have more time on your hands than I do.

@Rarebear: ”@donotknowmuch. You must have more time on your hands than I do.”

You certainly have enough time to make the Nader comments. It shouldn’t take any longer to explain those comments.

@jaytkay “The “liberal” Clinton haters here are dedicated to getting a Republican into the White House. It’s evident what their game is.”

Sorry, but I don’t take hyperbole seriously.

@DoNotKnowMuch Already explained them. Read the paper.

^ You didn’t, and have shown that you repeatedly makes claims about things you know nothing about. Either make your case or stop repeating the nonsense about Nader.

@DoNotKnowMuch It’s not nonsense, it’s been researched. Here is the research. The data is the data. You can choose to believe the data or not as you choose.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/lewis/pdf/greenreform9.pdf

@Rarebear – Maybe this is something that you’re incapable of. Just acknowledge that. I’m done.

For the record – I am not waiting to ambush you with some surprise “gotcha”. But it’s pretty basic. A conversation can be had about this. I was a true believer once too. It affected my voting for some time. It wasn’t until I really started looking into it that I realized that every analysis is based on some assumptions. And when it comes down to it, two adults can have a 3-minute conversation and come away with a different perspective (sometimes).

Don’t send me some link you just searched for again. Spend 2 minutes and put together a basic argument. It’s really easy. And this topic in particular is really easy. I know you can do this. And you may even convince me in the process. If you’re incapable of it, I’m hoping that you feel a small twinge of humility when you realize that you’re saying something that you have not yet considered.

Al I know is in the face of:
“I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists,” he said. “So I don’t know. I don’t know—did he endorse me, or what’s going on? Because I know nothing about David Duke; I know nothing about white supremacists.”
and endless list of things, Clinton is the only option because Sanders can’t win.

@Darth_Algar Sorry, but I don’t take hyperbole seriously.

Do you have a better explanation? They are working to have Ginsburg replaced with a Republican nominee.

Would you do that if you weren’t eager for more decisions like Citizens United and Hobby Lobby?

@DoNotKnowMuch I have an idea, instead of wasting your time engaging in straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks, why don’t you spend some time telling me what is wrong with the paper? Until you do we are done here.

@flo And he knows words. He has good words.

I’m going to do you a huge favor. I’m going to give you some things to consider. You will respond to these with logic, data, or both. If you want to refer to the paper for something specific, please do. But do your work. This is important stuff, but it’s far more simple than you’re making it.

- In 2000, 50% of eligible voters didn’t even vote. Do you feel that these people have less of a responsibility for Bush’s election than people who voted for Nader? If so, explain.

- If we just consider FL, Bush beat Gore by 537 votes. While Nader had 97,488 votes, there were 7 other candidates who had more than 537 votes. This was not a 2-party election.

- 12% of Democrats voted for Bush. Do you feel that these people have less of a responsibility for Bush’s election than people who voted for Nader? If so, explain.

- In order to focus on FL as being the deciding factor, we need to treat it separately from the general election at large. We must forget about questions related to why the Democratic candidate was so weak that he it came down to FL, or why he lost his home state. In other words, we must pick the state that appears to statistically (and superficially) show that Nader votes ate up Gores votes in order to discuss FL at all. Otherwise, we’re looking nationally, and FL becomes a footnote.

- Why does none of the blame rest on the DNC, corporate media, or the candidate? You have been fond of saying that Clinton is getting the most votes, and that is what matters. Yet, when votes mattered in the electoral colleges system, Bush got more votes. Was this a result of a weak candidate? Did Lieberman hurt their chances?

- Bush won in 2004 as well. Was the factor in that election as well? What explains the U.S. population being unwilling to elect the Democratic nominees for those years?

This might be a good start.
Thanks!

Honestly, Do, I really don’t care enough to argue about it. You can believe the data or you can not. I do, you don’t. It’s something you obviously feel very strongly about. I see it as history that I’m trying to to repeat. You see it as a conspiracy by the “Mainstream Media” to create a false narrative to scare people into voting Democratic. Personally, I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. So we’re done.

I feel very strongly when people repeat things like vaccines cause autism or that Nader is why we ended up with 2 terms of Bush without bothering to understand what they are saying. If you can find conspiracy theory in my very basic analysis above, then I’m confused. If you want to just keep repeating things that aren’t true without doing the work, then please do. But please don’t pretend that you have done the work. Reading a Wakefield paper isn’t doing the work on autism. Don’t make this mistake. Also note – this is really easy stuff. No need to run some complex models. You should be able to use the popular narrative that you repeat often to respond to my simple questions and convince me of your position.

Now you’re being a patronizing troll. Leave me alone.

Noted

“Personally, I don’t believe in conspiracy theories.” That’s like saying “I don’t believe in abortions.” Conspiracy theories exist. Abortions exist. Just sayin’. The other thing is that there are several “conspiracy theories” which are being proven as true. You can be like Aud’s father and say “The island can’t sink, no, not happening” while she yells “Look! HyBrasil is sinking!” Just because something is outside the realm of your experience or knowledge doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t true. Just sayin’

@Jak Off topic. So here.
http://www.fluther.com/189857/what-conspiracy-theories-do-you-believe-in/

So I am. Sorry. Forgot it is in General.

@Zaku… I really didn’t say it was, I was merely answering the question according to the way things were going in that ‘real’ time. I like the fact that in NY Bernie was very close to her as he has been in each state that she took so far but there’s still some major states to determine and as close to each other as they are I definitely agree with you.. It certainly isn’t over until it’s over.. But in either case we shouldn’t allow a Republican presidency now that we’re beginning to keep our noses out of the water but I guarantee if we go home and decide not to vote because our man didn’t get nominated (for what ever reason) then we will be allowing the Republican party to elect Trump.. A nominee that no conservative actually wants but still represents the Republican party and all Obama’s progress will be swept under the rug along with social programs that have saved millions of the poor and elderly.