Re: the recent spate of "will you vote if_____?" - aka "loyalty" threads.

I'll take the pledge, though. I don't mind.

The worst Dem is better than the best Republican.

Enough already!

I've been kind of busy lately!!!

which was the reason this place was created... but I digress.

You cannot pay to get this entertainment.

Thanks for articulating this.

How can I get you banned from DU unless you admit that you won't vote for a Democrat?

Please reconsider, thanks.

Regards,

TWM

You, Sir, are on notice!



There are such personalities, ya know!

in the General.

I don't take loyalty oaths for anything except to support and defend the constitution...I don't answer such questions because it is none of their business.
I don't like cults.

CREEP. ME. OUT,
.
.
.
besides, the Loyalty Oaths sounded better in their original German.

want to vote for that person. It's not a purity test.

Ignoring the butterfly ballot that gave votes to Pat Buchanan.

and it was Kathleen Harris purging Florida's voting lists of supposed felons and being Florida's Secretary Of State during the recount, Gore running a poor campaign, the butterfly ballots that you mentioned, the U.S. Supreme Court stopping the recount -- yada.

[font color = red]On Edit[/font]: And that G.W. Bush's brother was governor of Florida, and that lots and lots of Conservadems voted for Bush (and likewise lots of registered Republicans voted for Gore, but oh well), and ...

[font color = red]Edited:[/font] But all that doesn't eliminate the fact that even with all that, Gore would have won if not for Nader drawing thousands more votes away from Gore than from Bush, according to exit polls asking Nader voters who they would have voted for (or not voted at all) if Nader had not been on the ballot (Officially, Bush beat Gore by 537 votes in Florida. Nader got 97,488 votes in Florida. Please See #32 for more on that..)

Please see #32.

before Cheney's duck-hunting buddy on the US Supreme Court put an untimely stop to it.

there's no way they could have awarded the presidency to Bush.

and if his campaign co-chair hadn't been in charge of counting the votes, and if they had had a uniform statewide ballot, and if all those Gore votes in Volusia County hadn't been zapped because of a "malfunction" of proprietary voting software...

were bigger factors than Bush's final official 537 vote margin over Gore in Florida. But #14 ends with:



Throwing one's vote away on spoilers sometimes has consequences. The Republicans understand this, that's why they have funded so many Green Party candidates in close races.

than voted for Nader, which for me completely invalidates the Nader argument.

I've always regretted that Nader wasn't in any way concerned about his candidacy negatively impacting Democrats, I think he was wrong on that issue.

But the Florida Bush Democrats were the real story of that debacle, along with the shenanigans by Jeb, Katherine Harris, John Bolton, and the SCOTUS. Nader was a sideshow.

with the fact that if Nader had not been on the ballot, Gore would have won)

Anyway, more Florida Republicans voted for Gore than voted for Nader too. And many more Florida Dems and Florida Republicans stayed home than voted for Nader. Again, so what?

[font color = blue]>>Many more Florida Dems voted for Bush than voted for Nader, which for me completely invalidates the Nader argument. <<[/font]

"for me" being the key words here.

Officially, Bush beat Gore by 537 votes in Florida. Nader got 97,488 votes in Florida. {1} Even accepting Nader’s dubious claims that,

"In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all."

that still means a net of 13%, or 12,665, more votes would have gone to Gore than to Bush. {2}

{1} http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html
{2} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader_presidential_campaign,_2000

Had we all woken up the morning after election day with Gore having 12,000 more votes than Bush, it would not have gone to the SCOTUS.

This one has 21% would have voted for Bush, and 47% would have voted for Gore, for a 26% gap, or 25,347 more votes for Gore than Bush -- http://news.yahoo.com/bernie-sanders-liberal-democrats-savior-ralph-nader-spoiler-141556414.html

that created "Jews for Buchanan," the PAC that never was...

If he lost votes to Nader, that means Nader's message resonated better with those voters than did Gore's.

Can't blame Nader for that.

From #14, rephrased into a series of "and we can't blame Nader because" statements



But all that doesn't eliminate the near-certainty that even with all that, Gore would have won if not for Nader drawing thousands more votes away from Gore than from Bush, according to exit polls asking Nader voters who they would have voted for (or not voted at all) if Nader had not been on the ballot. (See #32)

And yes, I do blame Nader. He deliberately campaigned in the swing states, knowing full well that that increased the odds of Bush winning. Because he was pissed that the Gore campaign kept him out of the debates.

Gore should have campaigned better in those swing states.

By the way, I also blame the progressives who voted for [strike]Bush[/strike] Nader and then are horrified that Bush won and blame Gore for not running a better campaign. A total inability to come to grips with the consequences of their action. But a great ability to come up with self-serving excuses.

Interesting how you've shifted from "can't blame Nader" to "politics is a rough business"

/bye.

even though they greatly outnumbered the progressives who voted for Nader, and they were choosing a more reprehensible candidate (Bush) than the progressives who chose nader. Selective outrage.

But the point of #11, which began all of this, is whether Nader's presence on the ballot likely resulted in Bush's win. See #32.

What's next.

Are you going to blame me for selective outrage



(from #14, reworded into "because I don't seem outraged" statements)

Yes, I'm furious and livid about all of the above.

But the point of #11, which began all of this, is whether Nader's presence on the ballot likely resulted in Bush's win.

...Gore would be President too.

Of course, no one really knows "what if" in politics, and those who claim to know should trigger
a sufficient amount of skepticism.

I love "What If" games.
Lets play another one.

-- that 97,488 votes went to Nader, while Bush only "won" by 537 votes... etc. etc. Please see #32. Its quite simple. It's not a huge huge leap into speculation. But it's certainly a gigantic leap into speculation to make the argument in the opposite direction -- that without Nader on the ballot, Bush would have still "won".

[font color = blue]>> Of course, no one really knows "what if" in politics, and those who claim to know should trigger
a sufficient amount of skepticism. <<[/font]

OK, nobody knows with metaphysical absolute certainty. But, given the information we have, the overwhelming probability is that without Nader on the ballot, Gore would be president. You can think otherwise if you wish, and that's OK.

Your argument could be made about human-caused global warming too. However, most of us in the progressive community don't demand metaphysical absolute certainty before acting. There are many who are skeptical about global warming too, and who think their questioning, inquisitive, skeptical attitude is evidence of their intelligence -- that they don't just accept what them thar guvmint "scientists" and college professors are trying to feed them (see Jeb Bush ). Whatever.

We are talking bout the election in 2000, not Global Warming Deniers.

You give SUPERMAN powers to a mild mannered Consumer Activist.
Nader single handedly knocked the wheels off of the entire Democratic Party.
That image makes me smile.

Politicians lose elections....not voters.
NOTHING can be blamed on the voters.
If the troops are not motivated, it is an failure of leadership, nothing else.

If you find the courage to do a reality based assessment, then the problem can be fixed.....or you can just keep blaming the voters and our democracy.

Truth is, the Gore campaign threw away those votes in Florida.
They "calculated" they wouldn't need them, so continued to ignore the Nader camp.

If Al Gore had once, ONCE, turned to The Left and said something like, "I hear your voices.
Maybe NAFTA isn't such a good idea. I can't promise anything except this, I will listen to you.
M door is open."
....if he had said something like that, he would have been President in 2000,
but the campaign chose to ignore Nader in Florida. Bad mistake.

just don't spend the next 8 years whining about a Supreme Court whose only liberals are Kagan and Sotomayor. And privatized Social Security and Medicare.

Nader knew what he was doing by campaigning in swing states -- increasing the odds that Bush would be president. And he succeeded in swinging the election to Bush. Nothing "Bogus" about that. I hope you enjoyed the Iraq War and Shock and Awe and hundreds of thousands dead including thousands of Americans, and all those 5-4 Supreme Court rulings we've had over the last several years.

Yes, it's a little harder to blame his voters -- most of them were clueless about the realities of our political system. And for those who were a little less ignorant, it made them feel good being pure and wonderful even if they knew they were throwing away their vote.

and it doesn't matter what you think....so we have nothing more to talk about.

[font color = brown]>>Yes, it's a little harder to blame his voters -- most of them were clueless about the realities of our political system. And for those who were a little less ignorant, it made them feel good being pure and wonderful even if they knew they were throwing away their vote.<<[/font]

[font color = blue]>>I don't believe any of the Nader voters feel like they "threw away" their vote<<[/font]

Any? Out of 97,488 votes for Nader?

Well, perhaps a lot fewer than I think thought that they were throwing away their vote at the time.

But now, I betcha most of them wish they hadn't thrown away their vote now on an egotistical bozo. Unless they are happy with all the 5-4 Supreme Court decisions we've had over the last many years and all the wars and the Great Recession.

[font color = red]On Edit:[/font] And if some of them thought that voting for Nader would build up the Green Party or Nader's prospects for the next election, well, that didn't work out either. Support for both were much diminished in the 2004 election and after. And despite Republican funding of several Green Party candidates in close races.

And progressive superheros like Michael Moore and Barbara Ehrenreich who supported Nader in 2000 sang a very different tune in 2004. Seems like quite a few learned their lesson (people like Nader are called spoilers for a reason).

More on not blaming the voters -- just about everyone in this thread blames Gore for the outcome ... but wasn't it the primary voters who made him the Democratic nominee? And don't we in DU spend lots of time and energy ridiculing the Republican base's voters -- idiots who vote against their own interest and all that?

and voted for Gore in 2000. It was not my fault there was enough horse-shittery going on there that you couldn't shake a stick at it.

We wore stickers that said "I Voted ... I think" in protest.

I am entirely entitled to vote for whomever I please in the Primary, and not just because I anecdotally voted for Gore in Florida.

Furthermore, if I'm not gung ho for Hillary Clinton, it's not me, the voting person, that is at fault - It is Hillary Clinton's fault if someone is not eager to vote for her.

You are not the final arbiter of truth.

You also are restricting your entire analysis to FL. Gore wins NH and FL is irrelevant. Instead, Gore barely lost NH - by 2%.

You know who might have a good idea about how Gore lost? Al Gore. You know what he says? He ran a shitty campaign. You know what he doesn't say? "Fucking Nader!!"

#32 is hardly waving my hands. And #14 dealt with myriad other factors.

You've added some more, I guess.

But all that doesn't eliminate the fact that even with all that, Gore would have won if not for Nader drawing thousands more votes away from Gore than from Bush in Florida, according to exit polls asking Nader voters who they would have voted for (or not voted at all) if Nader had not been on the ballot (see #32).

PERHAPS ditto New Hampshire as I think you are trying to point out --

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_New_Hampshire,_2000

In New Hampshire, Nader got 22,000 votes. Bush's margin over Gore was 7,211

It's not clear to me that Nader swung New Hampshire, considering that some Nader voters would have voted for Bush, and some would have stayed home (or otherwise not voted for anyone in the presidential race) if Nader had not been on the ballot. I would have to see some New Hampshire exit poll information.

But if the Nader votes transferred to Gore / Bush / no-vote in the same ratio as in Florida (only 26% of the Florida Nader vote would have added to Gore's margin over Bush in the more optimistic-for-Gore case),

it would not have been enough to swing the outcome in New Hampshire. (26% * 22,000 = 5,720 -- not enough to overcome Bush's 7,211 margin over Gore).

That there is another state that Nader might have swung from Gore to Bush -- with enough electoral votes to change the final outcome -- only amplifies my argument:

Voting for spoilers has consequences.

Its no wonder the Republicans have supported so many Green Party candidates.

[font color = blue]>>You know who might have a good idea about how Gore lost? Al Gore. You know what he says? He ran a shitty campaign. You know what he doesn't say? "Fucking Nader!!"<<[/font]

I don't keep track of everything he says and doesn't say, so I'll have to take your word on that. He's probably too smart a politician to say "Fucking Nader!!" publicly. But I betcha he's thinking that.

You've got a story you want to tell, and you're extremely aggressive about telling it. Problem is your story isn't true.

Which means you get all the more aggressive in pushing it. Maybe if you keep saying the same thing loud enough everyone else will go away.

And that way, you can be all set up to scream at liberals and lazy voters whenever another Democrat loses due to their shitty campaign. Nader totally caused Coakley's losses, right?

Politicians have to earn votes. They are not entitled to votes. When they fail to earn enough votes, including voters choosing Nader, that is the politician's fault. They failed at their job.

Bush beat Gore by 537 votes in Florida. Nader got 97,488 votes in Florida etc. etc. Had Nader not been on the ballot, Gore would have won. So what "isn't true" about that? You can bleet and blather about how shitty Gore was, and I'll agree, but it doesn't change the fundamental reality that Nader knew that his campaigning in swing states was increasing the odds of Bush winning -- and succeeded in swinging the election. I hope you enjoyed the Iraq War and Shock and Awe and all those 5-4 Supreme Court rulings we've had over the last several years.

See #91 about throwing away your vote and then sanctimoniously saying, "well, the Democrat didn't earn my vote, he wasn't good and pure and wonderful enough, unlike me, who is always and pure and wonderful as the driven snow. Quixotic, yes, but fundamentally wonderful.

[font color = blue]>>32 is still blaming it on Nader, and 14 still restricts all your analysis to FL.<<[/font]

Yes, if Nader hadn't been on the ballot in Florida, Gore would have been president. Simple.

And #78 covers New Hampshire -- Nader probably didn't swing that state.

We will have dumb voters as long as we are a democracy (which you seem to have some problems with). That is WHY Blaming the Voters is a waste of time.
They will ALWAYS be with us.

Blaming Nader may make you feel good in a childish kind of way.
Blaming someone else always does,
but that NEVER fixes anything.
You won't be changing the voters.

You can rant, rave, and stamp your foot in 100 posts to this page,
and you won't change the voters.

The ONLY thing we can change is the politicians, Party Policies, Track Record,
and run smarter campaigns.
That is all there is.

Well, it seems everyone else is blaming Gore in a childish way too. Including you, in #89 for example.



and on and on and on.

So before you lecture me on childish blaming, you should read your own posts first.

And yes, I blame Nader -- he deliberately campaigned in swing states because he was pissed at Gore. And he knew full well that what he was doing increased the odds of a Bush victory. (And yes I blame Gore too).



My posts were only in reaction to 100 posts blaming Gore and denying any Nader role in this. And you have quite a few posts on this page yourself yammering the same themes.



Uhh, running smarter campaigns involves changing the voters perceptions of our candidates and of our opponents.

As long as you are busy blaming, blame, the "business friendly" "Welfare Reforming", "deregulating" Centrist administration of Bill Clinton which CREATED Nader.

They left a big vacuum on the left wing.
Vacuums are filled. Its physics.
If not Nader, it would have been someone else.

Now THERE is the place for an intervention.
THERE, some work can be done.
Blaming the voters?....a BIG waste of time.

but don't blame Hitler. He was merely filling a vacuum. And don't blame the German voters, after all it was the Jews that crashed the world economy and Hitler was the "tough on Jews" candidate. (Can't blame the voters for believing that and acting accordingly, right?) So no wonder they voted for Hitler . Ok. Nice try.

[font color = blue]>>As long as you are busy blaming, blame, the "business friendly" "Welfare Reforming", "deregulating" Centrist administration of Bill Clinton which CREATED Nader. ... Vacuums are filled. Its physics.
If not Nader, it would have been someone else. <<[/font]

It's all Gore's fault. Not at all Nader's fault, the awful Gore inevitably created an egotistical bozo who worked deliberately to throw the election to Bush -- and we got two wars, The Great Recession, an awful Supreme Court, Citizens United....

I felt during the election campaign that Gore was a hell of a lot better than Bush, based on his Senate voting record compared to Bush's policies as governor, and their campaign rhetoric. So did almost everyone in the progressive community that I know of and progressive journals I read. Hell, if he was better on just one issue, such as a woman's right to choose, that would be good enough for me as far as which one to vote for (rather than throwing my vote away on a egotistical churlish spoiler running 5% in the polls).

But if you insist.

It's ALL Gore's fault, Nader and the voters are completely blameless, just reacting to the evil Gore
It's ALL Gore's fault, Nader and the voters are completely blameless, just reacting to the evil Gore
It's ALL Gore's fault, Nader and the voters are completely blameless, just reacting to the evil Gore
It's ALL Gore's fault, Nader and the voters are completely blameless, just reacting to the evil Gore

Lather and repeat bvar's meme.

Myself, I don't live in a manichean mental universe where only one person is to blame for everything. From the very beginning (post #14 and repeated endlessly since), I blamed Gore, the butterfly ballots, Katherine Harris, Love Story, yada (as others urged me to do but apparently can't read, so I had to point that out repeatedly). For some reason, and I don't know why it is, when I point out that Nader belongs on the list -- and present the statistics that his candidacy in Florida probably threw the election to Bush -- suddenly people just go bonkers.

As far as wasting time, can I ask what you are doing?

[font color = blue]>>and you won't change the voters<<[/font]

And don't you think 90% of the posts here are intended to influence people (voters) to think and act a certain way? And political campaigns too? Why don't you go crusade against them, instead of bitching at me for being mad at Nader?

[font color = red]On Edit:[/font]

[font color = blue]>>The Gore Campaign did INDEED calculate that they wouldn't need the Nader voters.<<[/font]

Oh, I don't think that's quite what he calculated. He knew it would be a tight race and he needed every vote. But if he suddenly swung way to the left in order to try to scoop up some of the Nader voters (being the obstinant moralizing bunch that most of them are), he would have lost many more voters from the middle.

And people would criticize Gore for abandoning his positions to pander to the left. Given that he was already dubbed a serial liar by the media, that would have only confirmed that in many minds.

But at the same time, I am always up for changing my mind if someone I like better comes along

I do think that the odds of anyone with substance coming along now for the Democrats is probably unlikely as Clinton, Sanders and O' Malley have pretty much cleared the field. Though I could see Webb of Virginia or some other conservadem jumping in

Depending on one's definition of "fun".

It's like watching a train wreck. Sad, but you might as well watch it happen, because you sure can't do anything about it.

But, yeah, I'm with you. What's the rush?

He's a democratic socialist like me. I hope we get more democratic socialists in Congress. We sure could use them. It's a long way between now and voting time. I try and enjoy the entertainment here. I don't mind drama as long as I'm not in the middle of it.

I believe the best way to start real change is to focus most locally offline, which I try my best to do. I know many here do too.

It's maybe not popular to say this here, but President Obama and his family inspired me in this regard. As does the socialist city council woman in Seattle.

Some of the more histrionic stuff here usually makes me laugh. Then I go back to life offline. I look for fellowship & camaraderie here, and I find it when I'm fairly friendly toward most people here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6017539

The PUMAs sure showed themselves back then.

The OP is talking about Hillary supporters doing this 1 1/2 years before the GE and 7 months before the FIRST primary. The one you are talking about was done right before the Oregon/Kentucky primary. There were FIVE primaries left (Kentucky and Oregon on May 20th, PR on June 1st, and Montana and South Dakota on June 3rd). Even with Hillary Clinton winning 3 of those 5 she wasn't able to win (She won 112 delegates to Obama's 67). Everyone knew it at that time. It was mathematically impossible.

So way to go with re-arguing the 2008 primaries. You won that one.

But if you want an earlier post here's one (read the replies): http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3036792

I chose a poll since we've had a recent spate of them with similar results which is what it seemed like the OP was talking about.

The OP was talking about polls on DU that specifically demand loyalty oaths. The first one you posted was not only different, it was taken at a different time in the campaign (as I just pointed out). The second OP you posted was about a Zogby poll and paled in comparison with loyalty oath demands being thrown around by Hillary Clinton supporters in the last two months. But by all means, please continue to keep your head stuck in the ground.

There were people in that thread who pledged not to vote for Clinton. This was before the primaries even began.

But watch and see, whoever wins the nomination, there will be people choosing not to vote for the nominee. I expect some blow outs over it even. It's not new to DU.

BTW, make a poll in the same time frame (say, 14 months from now) as that other poll and let's see if the results are different (people refusing to vote for the presumptive nominee). I bet you that they won't be. I'd eat a hat if they were. This comes naturally to DU and has since even 2004 (I quit DU when Dean got trashed as did a lot of Deaniacs).

They are spinoffs of "inevitable Hillary" - for those who balked. D:

Freedom for supporters of the government only, for members of one party only, no matter how big its membership may be is, no freedom at all. Freedom is always freedom for the person who thinks differently. Rosa Luxemburg

and ignore can be your friends.....

Another option I have found to be very useful is to get up and leave the computer or go to do something else online.

And why on earth would anyone believe the results of those polls? The only way to ensure accuracy is to have people mail a pledgey person their mail-in ballot, and have them fill it out. It is silly. And reminds me of McCarthy, sort of. Or "You vill do what I say!!!" authoritarianism.

Even more stupid is the thread-jacking with "But will you vote for ******* if they are the nominee". Repeated a ridiculous number of times, as if the person demanding the answer is somehow stuck on repeat, and/or thinks they will win a prize, depending on your answer. I think the prize is getting others to get tired of reading the thread. Or just stop reading your posts at all.

Although it's not that new. There's a couple of members who've been at it since before anyone announced. They've used poisonous language against anyone showing any enthusiasm for any candidate other than theirs, and have used harassing behavior to do it. It's caused one of them several time outs, but they come back and act just as rude as before...although they have learned to not post all of their comments IN CAPS!!! Thank Dog for small favors, yes? I wouldn't have minded answering an honest question, posed in a civil way at an appropriate time, but that particular member's harassment has pushed my equanimity to the breaking point. It's driven me farther from those member's chosen candidate, the "inevitable one." I doubt I'm the only one. I don't post a lot, but I'm here every day and read everything. Those 2 or 3 members are the main culprits in the early advent of the Primary Wars here on DU this season.

or not. Hope that eases your angst.

Loyalty oaths are for fools.

It's simply to learn if a person is a Democrat or not.

I understand that they want obedience this time around, and I'm sure that if someone else took the lead we'd see those DUers making the same demand/request.

Dealing with people is messy, and parties by definition deal with people.

but rather about trying to make sure the person question acknowledges that actions (and elections) have consequences.

If someone is SO far gone that they are willing to condemn this country to 4 or more years of Republican hell because the nominee isn't good enough, then in my view, that person is positioning themselves as my enemy, whether they intend to do so or not.

Defeating the Republicans matters. And making sure that others understand that is critical in my way of viewing it.

It's a situation I never expect to face. It's an reductio ad absurdum.

It validates the "where else are you going to go?" thinking, leading to a plethora of candidates whose ears are attuned to the ka-ching of big money and not to the voters. Which in turn leads to disillusioned voters and depressed turnout.

The color of the jersey matters if the team actually stands for something you believe in. Focusing on the jersey and not what it represents is a crowd-killer.

WE know what the other guys represent. I know that almost anything the D's put up will be better than what the R's put up. That's reality.

trying to bully or shame people into shutting up and toeing the partisan line instead of actually earning their support.

I get it.

Make you're argument for your candidate in the primaries. That's what they are for.

But yeah, if one votes for a 3rd Party candidate, or don;t vote at all in the generals because the D nominee isn't "good enough," I think such a person is a godammed fool.

..."trying to make sure the person question acknowledges that actions (and elections) have consequences.

If someone is SO far gone that they are willing to condemn this country to 4 or more years of Republican hell because the nominee isn't good enough, then in my view, that person is positioning themselves as my enemy, whether they intend to do so or not.

Defeating the Republicans matters. And making sure that others understand that is critical in my way of viewing it."

That's exactly what I said. Lecturing. Bullying. Shaming. Because, instead of trying to make your point in a way that encourages listening, you have to "make sure the person acknowledges" your point. Of course, nobody has to do so, and your methods may set you up to fail.

I'm sure that people who are thinking for themselves, and making choices you don't agree with, are doing so because their goal is to "position themselves as your enemy." I doubt you factor into their choices at all. Your perception of an enemy isn't likely to influence any voters who aren't already with you to join you, though.

Of course defeating Republicans matters. Acting as if people don't understand that is patronizing, which is not exactly likely to bring people around to the way you view things.

And of course I'll be making my argument for my candidate in the primaries; I didn't need your suggestion to be already busy out there in the world doing so.

I wonder how many of those "fools" out there actually know how to spell "goddamned;" I wonder if they have reasons for voting 3rd party that make sense to them, and if you could find out those reasons and make your argument in a way that would win them over instead of attacking, antagonizing, bullying, shaming, and making them your enemy.

We'll probably never know.

without them we might be an actually useful board that could bring effective change to the body politic instead of frazzling our energy through factionalism.

you ask too much from your fellow forumistas.

who consistently post those kinds of threads.

But good luck losing your poop.

Yes, there are those I like more that others, ant in primaries, those are the ones I vote for. But all in all, in all general elections, I Vote Dem!

Perhaps you should start a poll about responding to such threads.

Promise?

I cannot take your opinion seriously unless you take a binding oath not to adhere to a loyalty pledge.

Even I don't take my opinions seriously. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=719876

most of what I say goes without saying .

other than whoever wins the democratic nomination as a viable President?

Paul? Walker? Cruz? Huckabee? Carson? Just to name a few of the insane bastards in the clown car.

These people are outright lunatics! I can't imagine anyone who gives two shits about America and his fellow man would allow one of these nutcases to get elected!

I will crawl over fucking broken glass on my belly to cast a vote for the democratic nominee because she/he will be a million times better than fucking Huckabee or Carson or any other teahaddist koch puppet on the thug list!

Hillary is by far my first choice, but make no mistake...the democratic nominee will be getting my vote for sure!

I don't see how anyone with a conscience and a heart would do any different.

I don't see why I need to say anything more than that, 18 months out.

I'm telling the world I will be voting for the democratic candidate, whoever that will be.

Sitting out is not an option. The koch bros hope we do. Writing in someones name not on the ballot, might as well go ahead and vote for the damned republican and get it over with IMO.

You do as you see fit.

As for me, I'm not going to sit back and smugly watch the world burn down because my favorite did not win the nomination.

I'm working 12 -16 hrs per day and haven't had the time to research the candidates to see which one I like better. I'm sure I'd be happy with any frontrunning Democrat nominee unless it splits the vote.

I tried to say as much in a post the other day, and was shit on by an HR see supporter. You are so right. These kind of "loyalty" threads are offensive, pointless, and beyond stupid.

We are fortunate in that we have a relatively small group of accomplished and intelligent candidates. There really is no need to shit on any of them or on their supporters.

But my guess is that we're going to have to suck it up and deal with this kind of shit for the next 12 months or so.

never quite understood the point

can cause by threatening not to vote. It's almost funny..