Yes, I'm 'Voting Blue No Matter Who'—and here's why

[Agnosticsherbet]

Yes, I'm 'Voting Blue No Matter Who'—and here's why
It’s simple.
On a humanitarian level, most Democratic lawmakers on their worst days, far exceed most Republican lawmakers on their best days. Even if I don’t care for the Democratic candidate who becomes the party’s nominee, even if I can’t stand the sound of that person’s voice — I refuse to give my vote, by default, to the Republican Party.

When I hear a progressive/liberal/Democrat say they’re not voting unless their favorite candidate wins the nomination, I’m stunned. When the Left doesn’t vote, we are essentially giving our votes to the Right, which means we are helping to elect politicians from a party where racism, misogyny, homophobia and xenophobia dominate their congressional voting, lawmaking, and profit-making agendas. It’s a party that has obstructed/blocked every good bill President Obama has introduced. It’s a party that produces hate mongers like Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Not voting is not only bad for Democrats, it’s a bad deal for all Americans. If you think your vote doesn’t count, think again. Let’s take a look behind GOP doors to see what kind of prizes we can win, Monty.

[revbones]

1. 0 + 0 != 1 It's math.

Not voting for Hillary does not equal voting for Trump or another Republican.

0 votes for Hillary + 0 votes for Trump = 0 votes

I'm not sure where you get the extra vote from in your math but I'm tired of the loyalty oaths and bogus math.

[Agnosticsherbet]

2. LOL - revisited.

[revbones]

3. Still doesn't make your false math add up. nt

[nykym]

8. hypothetical vote tally

111,111,111 votes for D (whoever)
111,111,112 votes for R (whoever)

Guess who wins because you did not vote.

[merrily]

10. Remind me when a President last lost by one popular vote?

The popular vote does not determine a Presidential election anyway.

[revbones]

11. That's marginally better than the 0 + 0 = 1 but

It's still specious at best. In that scenario, there are millions more that didn't vote.

Also, what if you did vote and it tied? Or by that same logic you voted and the candidate still didn't win? What then?

Was their loss then because you didn't donate enough? You didn't canvass or phonebank enough? When does the blame stop?

[PowerToThePeople]

12. Correct response

"Guess who lost because they failed to earn that vote?"

[revbones]

15. ^^^ BOOM! ^^^

[Hoyt]

24. I agree. But Sanders' supporters don't believe in math or reality, for the most part.

[brush]

19. How about this. Repug voter ID laws suppress Dem votes. Dems not voting also suppress Dem votes

Not a loyalty test, not bogus math, not rocket science either, btw, especially with the neo-fascist Trump poised to nominate SCOTUS judges.

Vote for the sake of the country.

[revbones]

22. Not sure that's logical either

We are talking about the presidential election, the president doesn't write voter ID laws or any legislation for that matter.

I don't think anyone here, even those most staunchly opposed to voting for Hillary have said they wouldn't vote for downticket races. Also, while some have commited to not voting if Hillary is the nominee, there are many more such as myself that have not firmly commited and are just troubled about it. They may or may not in the end, but I will tell you that the constant badgering by Hillary supporters who if they are not just baiting people, are really just looking for reasons to reassure themselves about their own poor choice in voting for her in the primary.

It's like those people are saying "I know she's not electable but I'm innoculated to anything negative about her and can't help myself. Maybe if I see people commit to sucking it up in Nov, I can sleep at night over my own poor choices..."

[brush]

25. I get the Bernie v Hillary dilemma but it's bigger than that.

Last edited Tue Mar 15, 2016, 02:21 PM - Edit history (1)

The upcoming SCOTUS appointments, even if Obama does or doesn't get to replace Scalia, will shift the liberal v conservative balance of the Supreme Court for at least 30-40 years, maybe even more.

If Obama doesn't get to appoint a liberal judge and a repug wins the election, he will replace Scalia with another conservative justice, thereby restoring the 5-4 dominance of the conservatives on the bench, then with the inevitable resignations or passings (unfortunately) of the two or three other elderly judges, a repug could conceivably appoint all of those judges with young conservatives which would make a 50-60 year conservative dominance on the court with a possible 6-3, 7-2, or even an 8-1, and undoable, right wing dominance on the court that will last for three to four generations into the future.

Not having a conservative Supreme Court ready to act to declare any right wing, extreme whim-of-the-month they conjure up constitutional and gets rid of civil rights legislation, womens' rights, gay rights, social security, medicare, medicaid, health care and the rest of the safety net and takes us back to the 1950s, maybe even the 1850s, is much more important than withholding a vote because one's candidate didn't get the dem nomination.

We have to think of the future of the country that our families, children and grandchildren will live in in the future.

[revbones]

26. The problem with that

is that it's always "bigger than that". It's always the absolute most important election ever!

For me personally, if Bernie is the nomine then I'll continue to donate. I'll phonebank, canvas and do whatever I can. Bernie motivates people. If Hillary is the nominee, then I'm still on the fence about even voting for her. That's how toxic she is to many people.

Regardless though, using what Obama does or doesn't as a way to make a case for something that hasn't even happened yet and is months away, is still not worth all the effort you guys put into it. It only serves to leave a yucky taste in people's mouths about Hillary supporters trying to get you to commit to something you find horrible right now, without consideration that many might just suck it up if you left them alone to get used to the horror show that she'd bring.

[brush]

33. In your last sentence, you should re-phrase with — "the horror show a repug would bring."

Too me it's getting real, real fast. It's not really about so-called incrementalism or revolution. Are we not paying attention to who the repugs are about to nominate, as if Clinton would be a horror show compared to either the neo-fascist Trump or the religio-fascist Cruz? One of them winning would be a stop to any progression at all. We're talking reverse revolution really with those clowns — 1850s calling.

We need to get a grip and stop buying into and repeating repug talking points about Clinton being so horrible. She's a center left Democrat, much like previous Democratic presidents. Why not say Obama is a horror show, Bill Clinton was a horror show, even Carter was a horror show, and LBJ (with all his civil rights and Great Society acheivments) and JFK because to varying degrees, they all had similar positions as this Clinton. The party is what it is.

Bernie is to the left of them on many issues but he only joined the party eight months ago and I dare say he is not in agreement with those of his supporters (not all of them, thank God), who insist that all of a sudden everything must be our way or the highway and he must be the nominee or votes will be withheld?

And the SCOTUS matter remains as people turn themselves into pretzels to explain why they can't vote for whoever the dem candidate will be.

With all that's at stake, it is quite amazing to me that voting blue is not an obvious no-brainer.

[revbones]

34. I'm sorry you're in panic mode.

But that doesn't mean that the rest of us are or even feel the same regarding things as you do.

I don't retract my statement, because Hillary is horrible. Absolutely horrible. I'm able to look past the crap, and consider what she's actually done. I'm sorry that you seem unable to, or if you can and are able to live with it then that's on you.

Just saying that everything bad about Clinton is a "repug talking point" doesn't make that true. She's done plenty bad stuff on her own without their help and your denial doesn't help convince anyone it's true either.

You don't see Bernie supporters creating threads whining about people needing to support the eventual nominee, or if you can find one it's probably a very smal fraction of Hillary supporters doing that.

I'm not on team blue just because I dislike the color red. I joined the Democratic Party because it most fit with my principles, not because I wanted to play team-politics and blindly make it my identity. I've even commented as such: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1373850

No, if Hillary supporters are so worried because their candidate can't unite everyone, well then they shouldn't vote for that candidate and instead vote for the one that can.

[brush]

35. No one is panicking, not one is worried. If the party no longer aligns with your principles . . .

there is no need for you to stay if Clinton becomes the nominee.

[revbones]

36. "Too me it's getting real, real fast. " seems to indicate panic mode.

As well as all the loyalty oaths, and begging to just vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination.

Again, if Hillary supporters are so concerned that people won't vote for her, then they should reconsider their own vote rather than telling others how to vote.

And the point of my previous comment was that some people have principles. The Democratic Party used to as well. Now Hillary supporters are saying "My candidate sucks, but would you please just vote for her if she gets the nomination?" It's tired already.

[brush]

37. Like I said, if the party no longer aligns with your principles . . .

why stay?

I see no need to continue this conversation.

[revbones]

38. Just because people are stuck in a party

where one of the candidates is pulling right-ward, doesn't mean that they have to leave. It also doesn't mean that they have to vote for the right-ward moving horrid candidate either.

[mythology]

30. No, but President does head the DOJ which under Obama has sued to protect voting rights

Especially given the Supreme Court, appointed by the President (ability to nominate may be null and void if Republicans are having a temper tantrum), gutted the Voting Rights Act.

[revbones]

31. You're getting into the weeds there.

And really, this is not an effective strategy. It's basically like "Hey, I want you to commit to voting for my candidate because some stuff might happen months from when you actually vote that is months from now - otherwise, I'm going to just keeping annoying the living heck out of you with more loyalty posts..."

[Cavallo]

29. However, if we don't get Bernie, we should do our best not to get Cruz, Trump or Rubio.

[UglyGreed]

4. HMMM

[merrily]

5. DU just hasn't enough OPs and other posts like this during the last 2 years.

Monty? LOL!

Someone's out of touch! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let's_Make_a_Deal

Where's the link for the OP quote?

[FSogol]

6. K & R. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

7. I'm from a Democratic family, lifelong Democrat here. This is not the time for this. It feels like

bullying. Many of you support a candidate who insulted may others this weekend in a way that apparently none of you nor your candidate really fathom. What you should be posting is 'thank God the General Election is not this week' because if it was you would have a problem indeed.

Clean up the Reagan vomit on the floor, clean the stink out of the room and then come push at me.

[merrily]

14. No adult needs this kind of pushing anyway. It's ridiculous.

[revbones]

16. This is an excellent point

Clean your house and attract voters. Don't try guilt and future-blaming them.

[farleftlib]

21. Thank you

for putting it so well. She really effed up this time and this is not the time to come around and demand a round of kumbayah.

[LondonReign2]

9. "Democrats: We Suck Slightly Less"

That slogan in 2010 and 2014. Turns out it was less than compelling.

[revbones]

13. ^^ YES ^^ nt

[merrily]

17. On the (not too) bright side, right after the 2014 midterm, Third Way

promised to double down on (snort) working with Republicans.

Worst losses since 1928, and Third Way promises even more of the same!

Tell me again how Third Way is the only electible way. I've heard and read it so often, but the evidence does not bear it out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12777036

Wanna know what's electible? Twenty consecutive years in the Oval Office and at least 40 years of Congressional coattails, that's what electible is!

The first rule in my book is that we have to stick by the liberal principles of the Democratic Party. We are not going to get anywhere by trimming or appeasing. And we don't need to try it.

The record the Democratic Party has made in the last 20 years is the greatest political asset any party ever had in the history of the world. We would be foolish to throw it away. There is nothing our enemies would like better and nothing that would do more to help them win an election.

I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.

But when a Democratic candidate goes out and explains what the New Deal and fair Deal really are--when he stands up like a man and puts the issues before the people--then Democrats can win, even in places where they have never won before. It has been proven time and again.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/index.php?pid=1296

[vintx]

32. This.

[sharp_stick]

18. The pretend Democrats

will keep trying to convince everyone that it doesn't matter if they don't vote for the eventual nominee. It's not going to be their fault, nothing ever is.

I can't wait until this nomination bullshit is over.

[greyl]

20. Link to original here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/9/1496148/-Yes-I-m-Voting-Blue-No-Matter-Who-And-here-s-why

[revbones]

23. Meh, same old same old nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

28. I'll "vote that way if my state's in play."

Unless it's Bernie...then I'll vote, regardless. Hillary? It'll depend on if there's any chance my state will beak "red." And those are long-ass odds...

[CalvinballPro]

39. But you can't piss and moan if you genuinely take part in the process.

Which is why poseur progressives do nothing but whine, whine, whine. Especially the ones online, who think a tweet or repost counts as "activism" somehow.