Question...
My question is this? Did every person posting at DU vote for President Obama in 2012? Did every person posting on DU vote for him in 2008? If not, why not?
= new reply since forum marked as read
also. I don't remember in 2008 during the primary anyone stating if Hillary Clinton doesn't win the nomination you have to vote for Barack Obama. It appears some at DU seem to think this time around anybody that doesn't vote for HRC if she wins the nomination is voting for a republican...or is somehow not a democrat. Party loyalty wow, is there such a thing as this where a person has to go against their knowledge and experience to vote for someone they feel will not be good for the country or the world for that matter? What is going on here. 
I assure you they disliked the Clintons even more at that time. She would have had a horrible time as a Clinton and the first woman in that position. I'm happy you are a Bernie supported. I am also. 
In '08 and '12.
In '08 I was naive enough to believe that bigotry and racism had been tamped down to the point that an African American President would enjoy more biparisanship cooperation than would a woman., even though I also believed at the time that, due to sheer experience in Govt., HRC was the more qualified.
I was mistaken on so many levels, but most especially in assuming racism was all but dead. 
... although I have no idea what your generation is.
Historically, you know, before voter secrecy, it was not unknown for local magnates (be they aristocrats or factory owners) to force their employees/constituents to gather and vote publicly, and to cast their vote for whom they were told, or suffer the consequences. You see, when the ruling class decided to extend the vote to everyone, they still wanted a way to control it. The secret ballot was intended as a means to defeat this. Before the advent of computers and modern techniques, it was quite difficult to manipulate the vote (as it still is where ballots are submitted by hand, although there are ways to confuse this, also). This is one reason why certain of us are leery of the idea of Internet voting. Allowing a central authority to access and process all the votes en mass raises fears of Big Brother.
In any event, the idea of a secret ballot became one of those "sacred" ideas that one agreed with as a matter of course, and thus asking about one's vote became a tabu subject. Times have, of course, changed, but some of us cling to the old ways.
-- Mal
Social/ethnic differences would have been my second choice. But you mustn't labor under the misapprehension that I think there is only one light, and was trying to show it to you. Indeed, the only enlightenment I have to offer is as to my own personal views and the context in which they have emerged.
Sadly, one of the mistakes made by liberals is taking the AA vote for granted, which is especially ironic now that so many are bitching about the Clinton campaign taking theirs for granted. Many are complaining that having Mrs Clinton as president will require them to settle for a candidate that only represents few, if any, of their interests. As if the AA communities haven't had to deal with this fact since Reconstruction.
Something we are seeing in this election is the cries of outrage as those who, heretofore, have been at the top of the food chain, suddenly realize that their cush gig is in danger. It may open a few eyes, but I wouldn't bank on it. And that is on the Democratic side. On the GOP side... well, I am tolerably sure there will be no empathy at all, there.
-- Mal
Therein lies a difficulty, as I see it. Although as I have stated many times in other threads, damage control has no romance, is it not prudent to remember that, while voting for the lesser of evils is certainly voting for evil, it is also voting for lesser? The idealist cries, No, No!, the realist says "where there's life, there's hope." (And after all, Mr Obama ran on a platform of Hope. Mrs Clinton, more cynical, runs on a platform of "I'm better than the alternative."
Now, why one who is granted little, if any, status in "the country," and whose ancestors suffered and died at the hands of an uncaring class, should particularly care about what happens to "the country" is problematic, except of course, that they are part of that selfsame country. (It says here) And Mr Trump has already promised that pogroms will start for Muslims (however much we may trust anything he says). We may be facing a situation in which the old "First they came for the Jews" story applies. (Or, that might just be a way to manipulate the voters, again, into voting the status quo) It may well be that 2016 is a time when the lesser of evils really is preferable, even to an idealist, because the alternative is worse than ever before. Personally, I consider the assignment of "blame" to be bootless (and hence its denial). I am responsible only to myself, and whatever happens has exactly as much to do with me as any other stiff on the street. But I am responsible for my own conduct. Someone hits me, I hit them back: that they hit me does not absolve me of responsibility for striking them, their conduct should not and does not dictate my own. I daresay, I might have a different opinion if I were hit more often.
In any event, it is not for me (nor anyone else) to tell you (nor anyone else) how to think nor how to act. Speaking personally, for me discussion is discussion, to weigh reasons for actions and thoughts, and not to advocate for this or that (generally speaking, of course. I'm perfectly happy to recommend a scotch or a book, but I would hardly suggest you are wrong to choose differently). I have neither standing nor privilege to offer rebuke, nor to claim expectation. (Well, perhaps expectation of civility, so far as I use others with civility, and being realistic about the fact that sometimes passion gives tongue) There's an interesting little nuance here, since it is perfectly possible to consider that someone is wrong, without therefore concluding that they have no right to be wrong. It is a nuance, I fear, that is often forgotten. And it can lead to all sorts of unpleasantness and complexity.
-- Mal
I believe you have made the right choice. I have voted the straight democratic ticket my entire life also. 
So have I. 
Thank you for taking the time to help me understand what is going on here. 
not minding my slightly cranky first response.
I tend to get a bit cranky when I read something I don't quite understand. I believe it's a trait of those that like to think before they leap.
including one who is now a convicted felon, John Rowland.
and then there is the former mayor of Waterbury...
