Are Threats to Withhold Your Vote From The Nominee in the General Fair/Sensible Primary Tactics?

[McCamy Taylor]

This is a 100% real question and I would appreciate honest responses.

We all know that during the general election, we are expected to hang together (or hang separately) at DU. On the other hand...

During the primary, it is fair to tout our own candidate's ability to rouse the base and win votes in the general while predicting that the opponent will be so unlovable/scary that Dems will stay away from the polls in droves if he/she is nominated?

With this is mind, are threats to withhold your own vote in the general legitimate presidential primary political tactics? Please justify your answer.

[SheilaT]

1. They're meaningless, especially this far before the

first primary or caucus.

Plus, those threats are mainly coming from a very small number of people on this site, and I sort of doubt that the larger universe of Democrats is even aware of this small group. Or would care at all about them.

[HassleCat]

2. Not on DU

It's fine to explain why I don't like Hillary Clinton. It's fine to explain why I prefer Bernie Sanders. It's even fine to explain why I will find it difficult to vote for Clinton next November. It may be OK to say I'm considering not voting for her, although this is a gray area, according to the admins. It is definitely not OK to say I'm refusing to vote for her, and way beyond OK to encourage others not to vote for her.

Anyway, it's not productive to threaten people that way. The common expression for this is, "dog in the manger." Think of a dog angry it cannot eat the hay, barking at the cows so they can't have any hay, either. Most people are repelled by this.

[LonePirate]

3. Withholding a vote in the general election is not much different than voting for the Repub.

[frazzled]

4. I don't know about fair, but they're certainly not sensible

as a primary "tactic"--that is to say, as a tactic to try to persuade people to vote for your candidate and/or not vote for another candidate. Nobody sees a threat to not vote for Hillary, should she win the nomination, and thinks, "Gee, I'd better not vote for her now because some guy says he won't vote for her in the general." Nobody. It's like a childish, high-school mean-girls tactic (which always fail in the end, too--don't you watch teen movies?).

Look, I think most people are sincere when they say they won't vote for her. But I think nobody cares if they don't vote for her.

[MineralMan]

5. Not sensible, really.

I've never seen the point of it. It doesn't influence anyone except to cause them to ignore the person saying that. It can't possibly change anyone's mind, really.

Ultimatums that merely apply to one person are not convincing and mean nothing really.

"I'm not going to do something" statements generally just evoke an "OK, well, then...have a nice day" response.

[brooklynite]

6. I think nominating Sanders is an unacceptable risk and if he's nominated I'll work like hell for him

Does that answer your question?

[ibegurpard]

7. No one talking here

Is going to withhold their vote if it's a situation where it would actually make a difference. Plus there are many critical down-ballot races. The problem is the increasing amount of politically illiterate disaffected voters. Hillary will not inspire them and she will actually be a down-ballot impediment to us in some places.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. I will vote for the candidate I prefer, is a statement, not a primary tactic.

[MoonRiver]

9. No, and it should not be tolerated on DU, starting yesterday.

[whatchamacallit]

10. Maybe they're not tactics

Maybe people are tired of riding the theme park election ride in circles. A lot of folks aren't buying it anymore and are stepping off.