Help an undecided voter

[19 cats and counting]

So here we are almost May and I haven't cast a vote yet.  My state does not vote until June 7, but I already requested my (absentee) ballot.  It should arrive this week.

Background-- I'm a lifelong Democrat and a campaign staffer who will most likely be gone by primary day (hence the absentee ballot).  I long thought the race would wrap up by the time it came here, but it looks like my vote may count afterall.   Even though I work in politics, I don't get as excited about presidential races as most do.  I prefer the action down the ticket (Congressional, statewide, state legislatures, etc).

I can make the case for both Hillary and Bernie.  However, I can make an equal case against both of them too.  Ultimately, my main goal is to have a nominee that will stop a President Trump or President Cruz.  (I had a hard time in 08 too as my first choice, John Edwards, dropped out before my state voted).  This time my first choice (NY governor Andrew Cuomo)  didn't get in the race (and I knew he wouldn't as he's a good friend of the Clintons and he would not run against her).  (I'm sure he endorsed her but I'm not positive).  

So any Hillary or Bernie fans--- make your case to me.  Do I play my woman card or feel the Bern?

[Maggie Mae]

Feel the Bern in the primary. 

Polling shows he'd beat Trump by a much larger margin than Clinton. 

Or Jill Stein. If you are looking for a progressive woman, she's what you are looking for. 

[19 cats and counting]

I'm shut out of voting for Jill Stein (in the primary).  Closed primary.

[Geechee Girl]

@19 cats and counting I feel your pain. I also have the June 7th primary. After decades pounding the pavement, poll running, and staffing offices, I'm burnt out. I've gone to a couple Bernie & Hillary events, and I've left uninspired. I don't have it in me to volunteer for either candidate. Miss GG, bless her heart, is so excited to vote in her first presidential election. I wish her enthusiasm would rub off on me.

Although I believe Hillary is the most qualified, I'm still mad she and Obama were no-shows at the 2008 FL DNC convention. As one of her delegates, I took it as a personal affront. I own my pettiness.  I also feel she doesn't need my financial support, so I sent a little Bernie's way. I've got petty beef with him, too. Nothing turns me off more than a speaker who points and yells. He comes off as such a curmudgeon.

So far, my plan is to vote Bernie in the primary, and Hillary in the general. I'm so over our two party system. Perhaps No Party Affiliation is my calling. 

[19 cats and counting]

I've actually got no beef with any of the candidates, I'm just most concerned about November.  If Hillary's emails are as much of a problem as the GOP makes them out to be, I want that out now, and not the general.  My biggest concern with Bernie is his ability to work with Congress to get shit done (they've shot Obama in the foot).  

I'm an enthusiastic voter (already sent away for my ballot) but I am just undecided.  Presidential elections aren't as exciting to me as they used to be (peak presidential for me peaked in 08, which was my first year affiliated).  As someone who was senior staff on a congressional race in 12, I had a big beef with Obama's campaign and how they openly took volunteers away from downticket races, and I'm sure I'll feel the same way this year.  

I actually don't have it in me to work for either candidate.  Since neither has 100% of my support, I'd rather put my energy downticket where it actually matters.  

[Gobbles]

I'm in Germany so voting is different but: I usually vote for the party that needs to win. In a situation with Trump I would support his biggest enemy, which based on the numbers seems to be Clinton right now. (In German media there are always graphics with the points and how much they need to be nominated). If Sanders still has a good chance of getting the nomination, I would vote for him of course, but if it is a lost vote (aka he doesn't make it anyway) I would give it to Clinton. If that makes sense...

Here in our last federal state election earlier this year it was a head to head race between the CDU (Merkels party) or the Greens (even more liberal than Sanders I think). Voting for the CDU is not possible for me, because they don't support gay marriage (and a couple of other things). I don't fully agree with the Greens as well, but a lot more than with the CDU. So it was clear that I would support the Greens. 

[ShepherdontheRock]

TBH Hillary's the candidate most likely to beat the GOP. She's beating every other candidate in every party in the popular vote. And she's also been the most able to sustain criticism. I honestly think, barring any sudden disasters or if anything worthwhile comes out of the emails thing we're gonna be looking at President Clinton this time next year. Honestly, I'm worried if in the unlikely (at this point) event Bernie gets the nomination  that the GOP will have a field day smearing him with his own rhetoric about being a socialist, and paint him to voters in swing states as some loony old moonbat.

I also have concerns about Bernie's more radical ideas. As a young person, while free college and free healthcare would be nice, economic policy wonks (even super liberal people like Paul Krugman) have found there's no way to implement these without massive tax hikes on the middle class. I'm also concerned that he's not seemed to have thought his foreign policy through beyond "No war! ISIS is evil!" Not that I'm THAT thrilled with Clinton's foreign policy either, but it's better than "Let's bomb the shit out of them!" Donald Trump.

So at this point it's vote the symbolic candidate (Bernie) or vote the broccoli candidate (Clinton.) I chose broccoli. Broccoli won by a landslide in my state. Broccoli I think will drive a harder bargain with the GOP. She's also having the popular vote right now. And she'll keep Scalias and Alitos out of the supreme court.

You do bring up a good point about downticket- keep in mind the reason Clinton's got a lot of superdelegates is she's been supporting a lot of their campaigns financially. And if we don't vote for downticket democrats, we're screwed either way.

[PennySycamore]

@ShepherdontheRock,  I was talking to a couple of Hillary delegates at the SC Democratic convention yesterday.  One woman said that people have been attacking Hillary since Bill was President.  She's used to the smears and can handle them fine.  

Honestly, I like both Hillary and Bernie.  I did vote for Bernie in the primary, but my decision was pretty split like 51%/49%.   I do think Hillary is stronger downballot.  In SC, we actually have someone running for every Congressional seat: all 7 reps and the Senate seat held by Tim Scott.  Currently we have only one Democratic congressman, Jim Clyburn.  

@19 cats and counting, never be apologetic about supporting John Edwards on '08.  He was the only candidate to address poverty.  The other candidates talked about the middle class, but didn't talk much or at all about those who weren't even in the middle class yet.  I was proud to be an Edwards Dem.  

 

[Mama Mia]

I'm a strong Bernie supporter. I think he would do much better than Clinton in a national race. Every single national poll has shown him consistently beating the possible Republican candidates by larger margins than Clinton. I think what people don't take into account when considering the partisan primary results is that really, for the most part, only people who are actually interested in politics, and have affiliation with one of the two dominant party's , tend to vote. In states with open primaries, Sander's has done incredibly well. And most voters aren't affiliated with either party.  In my opinion, both the Democrats and Republicans tend to underestimate how important that fact is. Both major parties have slightly under 30% of registered voters. Over 40% of voters are Independent ( or in a third party ) . More of these voters lean Left than right.  This is based on recent polling that is based on survey methods that are highly likely to greatly undercount the younger voters who Sander's is hugely popular with. ( 60% cell/ 40% landline - a proportion that will be skewed to older homeowners ) . 

Both Trump and Clinton come into the race as hugely polarizing figures, with insanely high negative opinions among the general population. Whether you agree with all the mud that has been slung at Clinton over the years, or not, I think it was a huge mistake for the DNC to have coronated her before the election cycle even started. 

I don't think Sander's positions are too extreme. They are common sense, populist policies that , I think, will greatly benefit average middle class families. Everyone knows someone who has lost a job because of corporate trade deals. Everyone knows someone who is crippled by students loans. Everyone knows someone who is bright and talented but can't afford to go to college. Everyone knows someone who has skipped medical care because they can't afford the deductibles. Small business owners know that paying for their employees insurance premiums means they can't hire as many workers. Okay, maybe not everyone knows people in these situations - but I bet most people do. I sure as hell would take a 500 annual tax hike if it meant I was saving the 5,000+ In health care costs I pay out between deductibles and co-pays for my family . When I was an employer I would have preferred paying a  small percentage towards universal health care then try to balance constantly rising, astronomical, insurance premiums, or try to keep sub-par employees just because I knew that losing their job meant they couldn't get medical treatment that they needed. I would rather I pay a little more in taxes if it meant my kids could go to college if they want, or start their own business without fear of not being able to afford medical care for their kids. Or keep their job without it being shipped overseas. None of that is radical, or particularly idealistic.

Ive been active in politics pretty much since toddlerhood ( my parents were professional campaign coordinators for awhile ) . I've always voted Democratic, even when my pick didn't win the primary - which was most of the time. But I think the party has got it really wrong with Clinton as their pick. I think Sander's has a much better shot in the general - even if he ran as an Independent. In my opinion, most loyal democrats are so used to the constant Clinton accusations that they assume they are all absurd, paranoid, right -wing propoganda, without stopping to consider that  1) some of it might be legitimate and 2) it doesn't matter if it's true or not, if most of the general public perceives her negatively. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[19 cats and counting]

@PennySycamore in 08 my Clinton/Obama decision was made in the voting booth (first time ever).  I only voted for Obama because (at that time), since elementary school, the presidency had been in the hands of two families.  I wanted to break that and if she were simply Hillary Rodham, maybe I would have voted for her.  

In the years since, Obama's election brought every closet racist out of the woodwork (they're now called the tea party).  As a white woman, I'm not ready for the closet misogynists to come out of the woodwork (which has already started).  I cringe when I see stickers like 'Trump that bitch" on people's cars.

Hillary's weaknesses that could cost her in November--- email gate and her likeability.  I'll vote for whoever the nominee is and neither concern me, but they will get the other side riled up.  

Bernie's strengths--- I was looking at the map of NY after their primary and he won the majority of the counties (not the population centers).  I like that he can compete in rural areas where most Democrats can't.  (I tend to work in rural areas).  I like that he's not writing them off.  And I like that he has strength with independents.  In my 2012 race, we were relying on ticket-splitting and Obama was so toxic in the district that it barely happened (we outperformed him by 15 points and still got creamed).  (On the contrary, in 04 50,000 people voted for Bush and a Democratic congressman).  I worry about Hillary having that kind of polarization.  

[Mama Mia]

Just as a wonky nerd - I think it would have been really interesting to see how much of the overt racism/ polarization is due to the advent of ubiquitous social media. If Obama had been elected in 2000, would there have been the same response- or would the racists have kept their remarks to their own circle?  Or would he even have been elected without social media propelling his campaign? How big an impact for reinforcing social opinions? Fascinating stuff.

 

[GiggleOfGirls]

Bernie is polling better against the GOP candidates and is well respected by both Dems and Reps, showing a willingness to work with both sides that's extremely important to me. So, even if I agreed with both of their stances equally, I'd go for Bernie.

As it is (so you know my bias up front), I agree with him more about several issues that she's refused to budge on and her ties to Monsanto (as well as other big businesses) make me extremely nervous. 

[meda]

4 hours ago, 19 cats and counting said:

@PennySycamore in 08 my Clinton/Obama decision was made in the voting booth (first time ever).  I only voted for Obama because (at that time), since elementary school, the presidency had been in the hands of two families.  I wanted to break that and if she were simply Hillary Rodham, maybe I would have voted for her.  

In the years since, Obama's election brought every closet racist out of the woodwork (they're now called the tea party).  As a white woman, I'm not ready for the closet misogynists to come out of the woodwork (which has already started).  I cringe when I see stickers like 'Trump that bitch" on people's cars.

Hillary's weaknesses that could cost her in November--- email gate and her likeability.  I'll vote for whoever the nominee is and neither concern me, but they will get the other side riled up.  

Bernie's strengths--- I was looking at the map of NY after their primary and he won the majority of the counties (not the population centers).  I like that he can compete in rural areas where most Democrats can't.  (I tend to work in rural areas).  I like that he's not writing them off.  And I like that he has strength with independents.  In my 2012 race, we were relying on ticket-splitting and Obama was so toxic in the district that it barely happened (we outperformed him by 15 points and still got creamed).  (On the contrary, in 04 50,000 people voted for Bush and a Democratic congressman).  I worry about Hillary having that kind of polarization.  

I'm one of those rural NY voters. Voted Bernie in the primary, will go for Hilary in the general. (I don't think he can get the nomination at this point). Bernie can speak to white, Yankee, educated  rural.  Upstate NY, not unlike VT and NH, has a higher than average education levels for rural areas- so the majority of Democrat primary voters, even in rural upstate, have at least a 4 year degree. We have a closed primary too. He's got a much harder sell in the rural south and far west in a general election

[19 cats and counting]

3 minutes ago, meda said:

I'm one of those rural NY voters. Voted Bernie in the primary, will go for Hilary in the general. (I don't think he can get the nomination at this point). Bernie can speak to white, Yankee, educated  rural.  Upstate NY, not unlike VT and NH, has a higher than average education levels for rural areas- so the majority of Democrat primary voters, even in rural upstate, have at least a 4 year degree. We have a closed primary too. He's got a much harder sell in the rural south and far west in a general election

I'm originally from NY (Hillary territory, as I grew up 1 mile away from her house).  I'm actually thinking of going back to NY, but this time upstate as I want colder weather.  I pre-registered to vote there (my registration was effective my 18th birthday) but as unaffiliated (I was in high school and didn't know much about politics) and was very frustrated I couldn't vote in the 04 primaries. 

My state has semi-closed primaries.  Unaffiliated can vote in either primary, but they cease being unaffiliated that day (technically you can change it back the next day).  But if you're a registered Democrat and want to vote in the GOP primary (or vice versa) you have to change 45 days out (general registration deadline is 21 days out).

I've also lived in the rural south (in the same general area as the Bates family, but across state lines) when working on my 2012 campaign and that's where I got the frustration (while fighting with the Obama campaign, who just called into other parts of the state) that campaigns write off rural voters.   That district sent a Democrat to Congress until the tea party wave of 2010 hit.   Obama lost 2-1 there.  But if you fight for every voter, perhaps you cut your losses to 60-40 and make up for it in other parts of the state.  That was the sense of frustration I got.  

[meda]

I've worked campaigns too, I agree that rural gets written off. My cousin gressional district went blue for three election cycles after 60 years of red, now we have a Paul Ryan wannabe because DCCC wouldn't pony up the money to support a solid moderate Dem with good poll numbers

That should be "congressional district" but I can't edit

Also, I'm about as far north as you can go in NY... Come back, we need Dem's with campaign experience who like cold

[Maggie Mae]

how is Hillary NY territory? 

She's not fucking from New York. Don't you guys have any sort of pride? 

 

[meda]

6 hours ago, Maggie Mae said:

how is Hillary NY territory? 

She's not fucking from New York. Don't you guys have any sort of pride? 

 

Seriously? Fuck off. You live in a red state of supposed "rugged individualists" who get more federal tax dollars per person than the rest of the US, plus get oil subsidies- and can't figure out how to manage the state budget and provide basic services now that oil prices are down. New York has paid family leave, just passed legislation to scale the minimum wage up to $15 an hour, has one of the most affordable and high quality public community college and university systems in the country, high graduation rates, pretty low unemployment,  some of the most comprehensive anti discrimination laws in the country, and had same sex marriage rights and comprehensive domestic partner rights before it was cool. Hilary helped achieve some of that, in no small part by working to help diversify the upstate ecconomy.  That's what "pride" looks like, it's called getting shit done as opposed to clinging to ideological purity.  If you would stop acting like a rabid "Bernie bro" and pull your head out of your posterior, you might actually notice what can be accomplished when that right, center, and left can work together.

 

finally- you people voted for Sarah Palin for your governor. Twice. Where's your self respect?

[19 cats and counting]

9 hours ago, Maggie Mae said:

how is Hillary NY territory? 

She's not fucking from New York. Don't you guys have any sort of pride? 

I remember very well when they moved to New York.  I remember driving by their house only to see the street closed off a week later (before they moved in).  (Street is a dead end street with about 12 houses on it).  

Confession-- in my first major election (2000) when she ran for Senate, that was the only time I ever voted GOP.  When they were in town, all the major streets were closed off and it almost had me fired from my job, so I was pissed.  Also I didn't like that she was using NY as a springboard to the presidency.

In 2006 (my last election in NY) I was much more partisan and voted for her.  I believe she won by a landslide that year.

(I only really say Hillary Clinton territory when people ask where I'm from.  NY is a big state, and people in political circles know exactly what I mean.  It's easier than saying a town most have never heard of.)

@meda I know what Cd you are talking about.  If the guy needs staff, send me a PM.

[ALM7]

On 4/30/2016 at 5:26 PM, 19 cats and counting said:

Even though I work in politics, I don't get as excited about presidential races as most do.  I prefer the action down the ticket (Congressional, statewide, state legislatures, etc).

Unfortunately, many Democrats don't vote during non-presidential election years. @19 cats and counting, as a volunteer organizer, I too concentrate on the same down ticket areas. My state (Oklahoma), has literally been taken over by the radical right.  Due to the fact Democratic turn-out is low at times, and we fail to recruit strong Democratic candidates. 

On 4/30/2016 at 5:26 PM, 19 cats and counting said:

I can make the case for both Hillary and Bernie.  However, I can make an equal case against both of them too.  Ultimately, my main goal is to have a nominee that will stop a President Trump or President Cruz.

Exactly, there are pros and cons, as with most candidates. My primary concern is defeating the Republican nominee during this particular election cycle. I personally think Secretary Clinton has a more positive balance sheet.

On 5/1/2016 at 8:50 AM, 19 cats and counting said:

My biggest concern with Bernie is his ability to work with Congress to get shit done (they've shot Obama in the foot).  

There's no doubt a Republican lead Congress would obstruct Senator Sanders, just as they have President Obama.  I feel President Obama was deliberately targeted due to a prejudiced Congress. It certainly wasn't due to liberal policy, He's a moderate Democrat in my opinion.

On 5/1/2016 at 10:52 AM, ShepherdontheRock said:

I also have concerns about Bernie's more radical ideas. As a young person, while free college and free healthcare would be nice, economic policy wonks (even super liberal people like Paul Krugman) have found there's no way to implement these without massive tax hikes on the middle class.

I completely agree @ShepherdontheRock.  As a matter of disclosure, politically I'm a Progressive/Liberal, I also practice Humanism (secular).  I do see the need for pragmatism, I could say I want a lot of changes, but I'm also a realist. Our country has over 320 million in population, 50 percent are classified as middle-income.  Free healthcare, education, and related issues, would be great within a perfect utopia, or a Country that has a much smaller population, and a different governmental set-up.  However, we (USA) cannot currently afford such a scenario. It must be funded by someone, and history shows that middle-income earners usually take the direct financial hit. Lower-income suffers through decreased or abolished services that are vital to their families. Directly and indirectly the majority will pay dearly.  Through various taxes (income, fees, licenses etc.), Social security/Medicare/Medicaid reductions and changes, programs for the young and elderly, retirement funds, etc.  Granted, one could say, lets make the corporations, or the 1 percenters pay directly out of their pocket, in reality, when has Congress really put the interest of the middle-income/lower-income over that of corporations, in the real world that is not going to happen. 

What we can do is demand Congress reign in the unethical practices of the Pharmaceutical and Insurance industries, unregulated Higher Education loan programs, corporate welfare and tax loopholes, we are in such a mess due to special interest groups, the list goes on and on. This would require organized voting at the local/state level, the ultimate goal would be elect responsible lawmakers. It will be a long, hard, and persistent fight, but it is achievable. If this particular brand of Republicans (and most certainly some Democrats), could alter the fabric of our Country over the last few decades, we can too, however; we must organize and vote, they certainly do, and they do it at all levels of government.  This elitist mentality started at the local levels.  

On 5/1/2016 at 3:17 PM, Mama Mia said:

I don't think Sander's positions are too extreme. They are common sense, populist policies that , I think, will greatly benefit average middle class families. Everyone knows someone who has lost a job because of corporate trade deals. Everyone knows someone who is crippled by students loans. Everyone knows someone who is bright and talented but can't afford to go to college. Everyone knows someone who has skipped medical care because they can't afford the deductibles. Small business owners know that paying for their employees insurance premiums means they can't hire as many workers.

@Mama Mia, you're certainly right, we do deserve the above bolded. I'm just fearful Congress (if they even acted), would shift the financial burden to the middle-income. The low-income would also pay, through losing valuable safety nets. 

I personally think Senator Sanders has great compassion, and I have respect for his desire to improve our Country. But I just can't see how his specific plan could work, without the middle-income footing the financial side of it, for generations to come.

Secretary Clinton has indicated she wants to dissect the existing programs, and eliminate the elements that have resulted in negative results. We may have a better chance for results going is route.  She will have an uphill battle, but I do feel she will rattle Congress and force their hand, further exposing their hypocrisy. 

10 hours ago, meda said:

New York has paid family leave, just passed legislation to scale the minimum wage up to $15 an hour, has one of the most affordable and high quality public community college and university systems in the country, high graduation rates, pretty low unemployment,  some of the most comprehensive anti discrimination laws in the country, and had same sex marriage rights and comprehensive domestic partner rights before it was cool. Hilary helped achieve some of that, in no small part by working to help diversify the upstate ecconomy.  That's what "pride" looks like, it's called getting shit done as opposed to clinging to ideological purity.

@meda, I wish many of our states would follow New York's example.  Secretary Clinton has a proven track record.  I know some may question her judgement call in a few areas, but the bottom line is, she is extremely capable of instrumenting constructive progress for our Country.  Personally, I would feel confident with Secretary Clinton as my President.

To the bolded:  I feel sorry for voters in states that elect responsible school boards, councils, state and national reps etc., and then they're stuck on a National level with the type of US Senators and Congresspersons that my State (Oklahoma) elects.  The entire Country suffers when certain states refuse to vote for rational politicians. 

[19 cats and counting]

@ALM7 Thank you for your work.  I've been a field organizer and it's really is herding cats.  I have also semi been in candidate recruitment meetings (my own county is a good old boy's club and it's hard for a girl to break through) and getting people to run is hard, especially when the district is gerrymandered for the other party.  They know they're a sacrificial lamb.  In my own congressional district, we've got a 36 year incumbent who doesn't even live in the state anymore.  I joked around at a party meeting that Bruce Springsteen is the only person who can beat him.  My own legislative district is dominated by fundies (Haredi Jews-- see the thread in QFOS about fundies buying up a town).

I actually am leaning Hillary thanks to this thread.  I needed to hear some arguments.

[JenniferJuniper]

I'm another who voted for Sanders in one of the early primaries, but I don't see a path for him now.

I'll support Clinton in the general election.  I'll send her money.  There is no other alternative.  Donald Trump cannot become president of the United States. 

[Julifornia]

I would vote for Trump a million times before I'd ever vote for Hillary, though if the general came down to Trump vs Sanders, not sure who I'd choose.  There is a tremendous amount of overlap in their positions vis a vis the economy and immigration, which are the only two issues that actually matter.

And the upshot is that either of them would be single-termers.  Unless Hillary suffers an acute bout of observed death, she'll be in office for two terms.  That's eight more years of 0% (or probably negative) interest rates, eight more years of the middle class being gutted to pay corporate subsidies, eight more years of selling American secrets and weapons systems to China, eight more years of pretending that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are not state sponsors of terrorism, eight more years of unnecessary mid-East wars, eight more years of outsourcing jobs and importing cheap labor, eight more years of unfettered immigration, and eight more years of record deficits.  Bush doubled the national debt.  Obama doubled the national debt.  You really think Hillary (the darling of the Establishment on *both* sides) is going to buck the trend?

I'd say vote for whomever you want (Bernie), but the winner will be Hillary, sudden death notwithstanding, because the GOP and Dems will collude to make it so.

/cynicism  (And this is why I wish the parties would pick platforms *before* candidates, and streamline or abolish the primary system.)

[ALM7]

5 hours ago, 19 cats and counting said:

@ALM7 Thank you for your work.  I've been a field organizer and it's really is herding cats.  I have also semi been in candidate recruitment meetings (my own county is a good old boy's club and it's hard for a girl to break through) and getting people to run is hard, especially when the district is gerrymandered for the other party.  They know they're a sacrificial lamb.  In my own congressional district, we've got a 36 year incumbent who doesn't even live in the state anymore.  I joked around at a party meeting that Bruce Springsteen is the only person who can beat him.  My own legislative district is dominated by fundies (Haredi Jews-- see the thread in QFOS about fundies buying up a town).

I actually am leaning Hillary thanks to this thread.  I needed to hear some arguments.

To bolded:  Thank you, and thank you for doing one of the toughest jobs!  You obviously have great patience and dedication.  I retired early from my legal practice, and decided to use my free time encouraging community leaders, organizations etc. to donate to various political and social interests.  After a couple years, I was approached by other retirees wanting to contribute their time and expertise. Now I have a network of retired cpa's, lawyers, teachers etc. that are not shy about asking for support.  At times I swear they give us what we want to make us go away lol.

BTW, I think herding cats would be easier than organizing field teams!  You have my utmost respect.

Regarding the good ol' boys club. I came of age in the mid-70's. As a woman, it wasn't easy to navigate the many challenges in my chosen profession. Failure was not an option, I'd be damned before I allowed the sexist system dictate my future.  I remember thinking the future generation of women would not have to deal with such blatant discrimination, was I ever wrong!  I have friends in their 30's/40's that go through hell, professional dilemmas I never had to deal with.  I have great respect for our current generation of women, they shouldn't have to deal with sexism in this day and age. This is all the more reason for women, and the great number of men that are truly supportive of women, to vote.  We have to stop the madness.

[sillybeebo]

If Bernie doesn't win, sure as heck I'm going to write him in! I'm not going to vote for Trump and his xenophobic nuttery. I'm not a fan of Hillary, either! Bernie seems like he is the only one who gives a damn!

[Mama Mia]

On May 3, 2016 at 5:25 PM, ALM7 said:

Unfortunately, many Democrats don't vote during non-presidential election years. @19 cats and counting, as a volunteer organizer, I too concentrate on the same down ticket areas. My state (Oklahoma), has literally been taken over by the radical right.  Due to the fact Democratic turn-out is low at times, and we fail to recruit strong Democratic candidates. 

Exactly, there are pros and cons, as with most candidates. My primary concern is defeating the Republican nominee during this particular election cycle. I personally think Secretary Clinton has a more positive balance sheet.

I really, really think this is where both major party political insiders/loyalists are missing the big picture. The established belief has always been that Democrats lose elections because, while there are more democrats than republicans, democrats don't vote as frequently. But this is really missing the MAJOR shift in the ideological landscape. The majority of voters are no longer affiliated with either party. That's pretty damn huge. You have two party's laying claim to all the political landscape and rule making and spinning out scenarios - but each only has about 30% of the population supporting them enough to even register with them. Over 40% are registered in a different party or Independent.  Neither the GOP or the Dems can  support from anywhere remotely close to a majority of Americans.  

There's no doubt a Republican lead Congress would obstruct Senator Sanders, just as they have President Obama.  I feel President Obama was deliberately targeted due to a prejudiced Congress. It certainly wasn't due to liberal policy, He's a moderate Democrat in my opinion.

And the far-right has made the Clinton's a target of hate and continual investigation for 25 years. I really don't see them bending over backward to support anything progressive the Hillary Clinton is going to propose. Remember Ken Starr? 

I completely agree @ShepherdontheRock.  As a matter of disclosure, politically I'm a Progressive/Liberal, I also practice Humanism (secular).  I do see the need for pragmatism, I could say I want a lot of changes, but I'm also a realist. Our country has over 320 million in population, 50 percent are classified as middle-income.  Free healthcare, education, and related issues, would be great within a perfect utopia, or a Country that has a much smaller population, and a different governmental set-up.  However, we (USA) cannot currently afford such a scenario. It must be funded by someone, and history shows that middle-income earners usually take the direct financial hit. Lower-income suffers through decreased or abolished services that are vital to their families. Directly and indirectly the majority will pay dearly.  Through various taxes (income, fees, licenses etc.), Social security/Medicare/Medicaid reductions and changes, programs for the young and elderly, retirement funds, etc.  Granted, one could say, lets make the corporations, or the 1 percenters pay directly out of their pocket, in reality, when has Congress really put the interest of the middle-income/lower-income over that of corporations, in the real world that is not going to happen. 

The only people who seem to think everything would be magically "free" are the people who like to portray Sander's supporters as naive, spoiled youngsters with pie-in-the-sky dreams. No. Not the reality. Of course everyone will be paying in for publically funded, universal health care and tuition free public universities. Just like everyone currently pays for roads and firefighters and k-12 education and the many, many other public services provided by the government that we all take as a given. The " middle class" , which as you point out , covers most Americans, ALREADY pays out huge sums, out of pocket, after taxes, every single month for health insurance premiums , co-pays, deductibles, college loans, tuition, saving to help pay their kid's college ( if they are at the better end of " middle class") . Etc.etc.etc.  these costs hugely impact people's day-to-day and long term quality of life than a tax increase would. 

 

 

What we can do is demand Congress reign in the unethical practices of the Pharmaceutical and Insurance industries, unregulated Higher Education loan programs, corporate welfare and tax loopholes, we are in such a mess due to special interest groups, the list goes on and on. This would require organized voting at the local/state level

We are in this mess because huge corporate interests run the show. They run the show because they finance the politicians. Period. There is zero logical reason that our health care system should be controlled by the power of private insurance companies. Little nips and tucks and tweaks will not change that. The best you will get is a continual system of socially left and socially right politicians swinging back and forth on the issues that don't really matter, in the big picture, to the people who control the financial and military infrastructure. 

@Mama Mia, you're certainly right, we do deserve the above bolded. I'm just fearful Congress (if they even acted), would shift the financial burden to the middle-income. The low-income would also pay, through losing valuable safety nets. 

I personally think Senator Sanders has great compassion, and I have respect for his desire to improve our Country. But I just can't see how his specific plan could work, without the middle-income footing the financial side of it, for generations to come.

 

Secretary Clinton has indicated she wants to dissect the existing programs, and eliminate the elements that have resulted in negative results. We may have a better chance for results going is route.  She will have an uphill battle, but I do feel she will rattle Congress and force their hand, further exposing their hypocrisy. 

I think Clinton has done some good things. I like that she was a big supporter of the Dream Act. I'm sure she would be a fairly adequate President. But I think there is no way on earth she would do anything to actually shake up anything. I think her ingrained, rock-bottom philosophy is basically noblesse oblige. 

Q