Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Re: the recent spate of "will you vote if_____?" - aka "loyalty" threads. [View all]joshcryer
(62,269 posts)28. You didn't read the replies.
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).
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
103 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Re: the recent spate of "will you vote if_____?" - aka "loyalty" threads. [View all]
scarletwoman
Jun 2015
OP
I'm screencapping and archiving your reply here to use against you four to ten years from now.
NYC_SKP
Jun 2015
#7
They haven't got me banned yet, even though I'm pretty open about how I will not vote for Hillary
Maedhros
Jun 2015
#52
Don't worry you won't have to vote for Hillary because Bernie is going to be the nominee.
sabrina 1
Jun 2015
#83
When I say who I'm voting for, it's to allow me an opportunity to tell my acquaintances why I would
Ed Suspicious
Jun 2015
#10
The SCOTUS would not have gotten involved if Gore had 12,000 votes more than Bush
progree
Jun 2015
#33
Well, if Gore had been on top by 12,000 or more votes on the morning after election day
progree
Jun 2015
#93
Yup, I have a long list of that stuff in #14. And I agree that all of them, even Love Story,
progree
Jun 2015
#99
So what? (Another one to add to my list of the irrelevant that still doesn't come to grips
progree
Jun 2015
#32
We dealt with that in #54-#55. But thanks again and again for the repetition. nm
progree
Jun 2015
#61
No, 32 is still blaming it on Nader, and 14 still restricts all your analysis to FL.
jeff47
Jun 2015
#88
The Gore Campaign did INDEED calculate that they wouldn't need the Nader voters.
bvar22
Jun 2015
#102
way to early to commit oneself to a particular candidate IMO. fun watching tho nt
msongs
Jun 2015
#12
The Purists always show up and demand Party Purity around primary time. Meh.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Jun 2015
#19
"Recent"? Some characters have been demanding loyalty oaths for two years now.
Scootaloo
Jun 2015
#23
For the record, I don't give a rat's ass whether anybody in the DU bubble votes
MoonRiver
Jun 2015
#31
Stating that you'll vote for anything with a D next to it has consequences, too.
winter is coming
Jun 2015
#64
You are apparently under the mistaken impression that I care whether my opinion is taken seriously.
scarletwoman
Jun 2015
#72
I like to think that I have both a conscience and a heart & that they will guide my actions in 2016.
scarletwoman
Jun 2015
#74