Clinton and Sanders have political stances that are 93% the same. So no, not really.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
This "I'm a progressive but if Hillary is the nominee, I'm not voting" shit is stale
- Thread starter PlayALLtheGames
- Start date
- Status
Clinton and Sanders have political stances that are 93% the same. So no, not really.
Aaronology
Member
Irrelevant. The fact remains that 2008's primary was highly contested and there was much, much more ill-will between the two camps than anything Bernie has faced to date. Despite this, Hillary's voters got behind Obama and the Dem party.
Okay I voted for Bernie. I DEFINITELY would've vote Bernie in the GE. Looks like Bernie's not getting the nomination. Out of my choices between Trump, Cruz, or Hillary and since I live in a purple state, I'm voting Hillary. That simple.
Amibguous Cad
Member
I *am* the one that's going to get tossed in jail for sodomy charges. And yeah, if it gets mainline democrats to take trans issues more seriously, that's an acceptable risk.
(well, not really, obviously. You've kind of stolen a rhetorical march on me by significantly overstating the impact - lawrence v texas ain't going anywhere anytime soon, no matter what the judiciary looks like. I guess the analogy would be that, yes, temporarily losing awhile on gay rights would be worth it if makes mainstream democrats take trans issues more seriously).
For the record, I canvassed for Bernie, will be canvassing for whoever wins the democratic nomination, and will probably vote close to straight ticket democrat in the general election. I'd vote for Barry flippin Goldwater if the alternative was Trump. I'm just saying that I get where these guys are coming from - the party has served some of its constituencies better than others, and we really can't take their votes for granted. I don't hold it against them if they wanna play some hardball.
Hillary's not my candidate. I'd have voted for Bernie if he got through the primary as well, but he's not my candidate. No one that ran this election is my candidate. Get over it.
Your not voting will do the opposite. Hillary is running against someone who talks about "Religious Freedom" to deny services to LGBT people. If she loses to someone like that while running a pro-lgbt campaign, what message do you think it'll send?
Boombloxer
Member
He got something like 92% of the Dem vote. So yea, the fringe didn't vote.
Also garbage.
Interesting. Probably a part of that 8% or so.
You will never get anyone here to successfully explain how turning-over SCOTUS to the GOP for a generation would help further progressive goals.
If you're willing to stick a judicial ice pick into Bernie's vision for a generation, you weren't all that serious about his issues to begin with. You're more about the man than his stated ideals. It'd be the honorable and honest thing to just come out and admit that you're voting personality over policy.
And now that I've said this, let's wait for the crickets, shall we?
This too. I'm aware that it's Primary season, but anyone who believes that 3 possible SC seats are worth punishing the Dems over is a fool.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
I'll vote for Hillary in November, despite not liking her, because I don't want to see the judiciary stacked with conservatives, but I also don't begrudge people who vote third party or don't vote at all because the two-party system is not able to provide them candidates that represent their values or who they think will do genuine good in moving the country forward. Giving politics a seat of primacy in rendering personal judgments on others is a direction I'm pretty sad to see the country move in.
Melkezadek
Member
You would throw the country into decades of regression? "temporarily losing gay rights"?
I love Bernie Sanders, but I'm started to believe that many of his supporters are actually insane.
No, it really is not. The way the movement is going is forward right now. Sure the movement is almost at a glacial pace, but it is still moving forward for both gay and trans issues.
What you are proposing is cutting off the nose to spite the face.
It not guilt tripping to point out the very real consequences of voting in this election. Politics is not black and white and there's very real consequences to who is in power. Especially when one political party have dove of the deep end of civility.
Sorry if that makes you feel uncomfortable, but for many it won't just be their feeling hurt but their families and livelihood.
SolarPowered
Member
We'll get exactly what we deserve, but not because of some disillusioned college kids. In the 2000 elections we decided to start off the new millennium by letting our SCOTUS (don't care if it's conservative or liberal in this case at all) trump the will of the people and we got one of the worst presidents this country has seen in the last 50-60 years. Now our "democratic" process has been hijacked by a billionaire who stokes the fires of racial and class based hatred shamelessly and everyone from the media to democrats (yes, these idiots switching parties to vote for the prick) gives him air time and support while whining ineffectually. Ironically the few common working people (including a lot of young people in their twenties that some gaffers can't stop bashing) take to the streets and risk physical confrontation with Trump's worst supporters. If Trump wins it'll be because of racists, idiots, the media, Republicans, Democrats and Independents dumb enough to give the man votes and a podium in the first place. But, it has to be disillusioned college kids with the least political and economic power among all voting demographics...
Basically, one image sums it up.
I get where they're coming from, too. Since '92, the Dems have agreed with my primary pick one time (I usually pick the more liberal option). It's damn frustrating to lose, but I post mainly to keep folks' eyes on the long view of things.
I like that we've had a more rigorous primary season than many expected, because so many interests/constituencies have gotten the candidates to actually compete instead of just checking the box with vague promises of better days. The candidates were forced to be much more specific with their policy statements, etc. A bland coronation would've allowed the nominee to just coast while doing just that - taking many folks for granted.
It isn't playing hardball, it's short-sighted foolishness. There is no rational justification to helping a republican get into power just because the other candidate isn't a perfect choice, if you are worried about treatment of minorities.
We'll get exactly what we deserve, but not because of some disillusioned college kids. In the 2000 elections we decided to start off the new millennium by letting our SCOTUS (don't care if it's conservative or liberal in this case at all) trump the will of the people and we got one of the worst presidents this country has seen in the last 50-60 years. Now our "democratic" process has been hijacked by a billionaire who stokes the fires of racial and class based hatred shamelessly and everyone from the media to democrats (yes, these idiots switching parties to vote for the prick) gives him air time and support while whining ineffectually. Ironically the few common working people (mostly young people in their twenties that some gaffers can't stop bashing) take to the streets and risk physical confrontation with Trump's worst supporters. If Trump wins it'll be because of racists, idiots, the media, Republicans, Democrats and Independents dumb enough to give the man votes and a podium in the first place. But, it has to be disillusioned college kids with the least political and economic power among all voting demographics...
Basically, one image sums it up.
As someone who is only 3 years removed from his early 20s:
We have all the fucking political power in the world and we proved that in 2008. The problem is that we don't fucking use it.
jakonovski
Member
To clarify since everyone's going real hot, I do think Trump is the doom of America. HIllary is the continued stagnation. As such it makes sense to vote Hillary unless you're someone who's been already cast out of society and want to lash out.
But I don't believe in guilt trips because voting is, in very real terms, a personal thing. Anyone desperate for Hillary to win (incl. Hillary) should be figuratively groveling before swing voters.
But I don't believe in guilt trips because voting is, in very real terms, a personal thing. Anyone desperate for Hillary to win (incl. Hillary) should be figuratively groveling before swing voters.
BinaryPork2737
Unconfirmed Member
Why would Democrats take our rights more seriously if the Republicans won? If anything, they would probably see it as the American populace as a whole not giving a shit about LGBT rights, and would abandon us entirely. That's what I'm not understanding about the entire "oh, this will teach the Democrats to take us more seriously" sentiment people are talking about. It will just teach them a lesson to ignore us, not double down on a group that didn't help them win.
*Sigh*
Ideology wise, Clinton is far closer to Sanders. And had always been. It used to be a criticism against her, and made her "divisive" and "unelectable."
http://presidential-candidates.insi...ck-Obama-vs-Bernie-Sanders-vs-Hillary-Clinton
Obama is a very pragmatic liberal/moderate. Clinton is a staunch liberal except in foreign policy matters, where she's a moderate. Sanders is a progressive.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Different voters have differing priorities in how they weigh issues. Trump is a racist, xenophobic candidate, but he's also an anti-free trade candidate promising to bring back jobs to America. I would imagine there are plenty of voters who, in the abstract, want things to improve for minorities, but on a more personal level, desire to escape the economic and social anomie that have overtaken our country in the last several decades by seeing fulfilling, decent-paying jobs come back to them and value that more. That's incredibly myopic, but I think myopia is the de facto driving force of most voters' electoral decisions, whether there is a larger social good arising from the ultimate outcome of a policy or not.
Melkezadek
Member
Appointing judges that would overturn Citizen's United is stagnation?
Nah. It's more emotionally satisfying to belittle others and make yourself feel righteous about your choice.
I've actually seen a few people post this in Hillary/Bernie primary threads a few times now and in exactly that "I won't vote to punish everyone to show how close Trump will get to winning the presidency."
Melkezadek
Member
He's more than just a racist, xenophobic candidate. I'm sure MANY Presidents were either one or both of those things. He's actively promoting violence and hostilities towards minorities. That should be a game changer for anyone who is a decent human being. You don't have to be a minority to be anger and disgusted by that.
TumblingHippo
Member
So like, I get the point of this thread, I really do. Trump's a madman and I know enough people (white males) who are saying if Hillary is the nominee they'll vote for Trump instead.
I've even had people say "I know he's a racist but he'll fix our country's financial problems!"
But then, when I see a thread or attitudes that are basically "let's shame people for being frustrated with the problems with politics" it just feels like all it's going to do is push more and more people to apathy. First will be the threads blaming voters, then the threads of "why didn't voters listen?"
I grew up loving the stories behind politics, but every election cycle just seems like it gets worse and worse. It's much much easier to worry about your day to day life than the bigger picture of politics, and it's not simply black and white or good vs evil when it comes to the average voter or non-voter.
but I can't even begin to wonder how it'll all play out.
I've even had people say "I know he's a racist but he'll fix our country's financial problems!"
But then, when I see a thread or attitudes that are basically "let's shame people for being frustrated with the problems with politics" it just feels like all it's going to do is push more and more people to apathy. First will be the threads blaming voters, then the threads of "why didn't voters listen?"
I grew up loving the stories behind politics, but every election cycle just seems like it gets worse and worse. It's much much easier to worry about your day to day life than the bigger picture of politics, and it's not simply black and white or good vs evil when it comes to the average voter or non-voter.
I got my Hillary vote in last Tuesday
Big Baybee
Member
As many times as this has been addressed, it'll once again boil down to "I just don't like her", instead of the actual issues. Even back in 2008, I knew she was to the left of Obama, but I supported Obama because he had the momentum and I knew he was going to win the GE. He was special.
Yeah exactly. Let me preserve my fragile ego by being a keyboard warrior even though
I barely know politics either!!
It's also satisfying to make solid arguments and have them conspicuously ignored.
Considering that SCOTUS allowing gay mariage less than a year ago is supposedly ongoing status quo...
We aren't stagnating. We've been moving forward since 2008. We've been doing it slowly, because we've had to drag a significant portion of the country along behind us, kicking and screaming. But we're doing it.
Sometimes I think the difference between black liberals and white/immigrant/1st generation/gay/trans liberals is that we've had blood in the game from the start. Our families have been fighting this fight and getting fought during this fight for generations.
We can see how far this country has come, and how far it has to go, not throuh history books or lecturers or strangers in our community. We can go to our parents and our grandparents. Our blood. Who were there and lived through it all.
My grandmother was born in 1939. She saw how much things changed between when she was a girl and when my mother was born. Between the world she raised my mom in and the world my mom brought me up in. She is a direct line of 76 years of struggle and steady progress. Not in some abstract of knowing that other people had it rough, but of it applying directly to her.
Sometimes I think that contributes to the different perspective. We know this shit takes time because we're not the first ones in our lineage having to deal with it. We have a direct line spanning decades of things getting better. We know how to play the game because we're not just joining it fresh. We're sitting in the chair our forebearers just stod up from.
Melkezadek
Member
It's not "shaming people for being frustrated with the problems with politics". It's shaming people who, in their frustration, would sabotage the country because they didn't get their candidate. The stakes are incredibly high in this election whether they want to recognize that or not. I'm frustrated that Bernie Sanders doesn't seem to have a chance to win the primary. I spread the word around and was/is really active in getting people involved
But that boat seems to have sailed and if we're ever going to get a future that Sanders campaigned on, we cannot allow a Trump or Cruz in office. This, for me, has nothing to do with D or R in front of their name. What are they proposing? How will it affect millions of Americans? How much of it is political difference and how much of it is prejudice?
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
I completely agree, but the unfortunate thing about the internet age is that echo chambers that allow people to insulate themselves from the reality of such things abound. There are a million ways to spin why Trump isn't really doing those things, why it's all just a misunderstanding perpetuated by a left scared to run against him, and thanks to confirmation bias, a feature of virtually all humans' cognition, it's a short leap to actually accept that spin. That's an unfortunate aspect of modern life, even an evil one for the corrosive effects it has, but I've long been of the opinion that most people are stupid and myopic and try to temper my judgments based on that.
I haven't seen anyone comment on your points, it is ridiculous.
SolarPowered
Member
I voted for Obama when I was just about 20. Soon those of us who voted for him will be in our thirties. I'm not looking forward to blaming the young and liberal for America's problems like those who came before us. It's not the fault of college kids that the RNC has bred a good chunk of it's base's higher brain functions away (along with legitimately screwing them over economically) and it's not the fault of a few leftists that the media gives Trump all the free media coverage in the world (or at least 2 billion dollars of it when I skimmed some news article).
I don't get this either. I don't like Hillary much (different from outright hating her like some other people), but she is one hell of a politician. If I were her supporter I wouldn't grovel or chastise anyone. Against Trump she should be running the table. Instead we get nothing but insecurity about Marcosoft Roboto being THE rising Obama-like republican threat and the modern equivalent of hippies being the decisive vote in an election where Trump has pissed off damn near 100 million minorities with his wannabe Hitler rhetoric. I hate to use this meme talk with her, but the "Queen" doesn't need a revolution or record breaking turnouts (which she'll get with minorities thanks to Donald) to stump Trump. November will be a painful wakeup call for the right wing of this country in general.
jakonovski
Member
Yep, ballots are secret for a reason and there's also a reason why it's illegal to campaign at polling places. It all stems from the idea that a vote cast under any sort of duress is undemocratic. A lot of people in this thread are actively hostile to this idea, even though they don't realize it.
The question isn't "did you vote in 2008." We all did. It's "did you vote in 2010."
A few years ago, in Washington state, there was a ballot measure for same sex civil unions. I briefly thought about voting against it, because in my view marriage is what was needed, not this insulting civil unions.
Then I realized I was being idiotic. Civil unions might not be what I wanted, but it was a step in the right direction, and I had no right to make a principled stand on something like this when it didn't even directly affect me. So it passed, and a few years later before the supreme court ruling, another ballot passed and the state had full marriage for same sex couples, no doubt helped by the civil unions that had been in effect for a while.
This election is the same, but on a larger scale. Clinton might not be everything you want but I absolutely think she is a step in the right direction, and if you at all care about these lofty end goals we need to take that step. Taking a principled stand will hurt people, with Trump as the nominee this is clearer then ever. Don't take a stand like this when people can lose so much from it.
Then I realized I was being idiotic. Civil unions might not be what I wanted, but it was a step in the right direction, and I had no right to make a principled stand on something like this when it didn't even directly affect me. So it passed, and a few years later before the supreme court ruling, another ballot passed and the state had full marriage for same sex couples, no doubt helped by the civil unions that had been in effect for a while.
This election is the same, but on a larger scale. Clinton might not be everything you want but I absolutely think she is a step in the right direction, and if you at all care about these lofty end goals we need to take that step. Taking a principled stand will hurt people, with Trump as the nominee this is clearer then ever. Don't take a stand like this when people can lose so much from it.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Also, the "Nader has blood on his hands" bullshit from earlier in this thread is ridiculous. Third parties have a history in American politics of acting as a conduit for those dissatisfied with this or that aspect of either the candidates or the political system, as a hole. Nader stands in a line with this tradition. It's Gore's weaknesses as a candidate, not Nader, that lost him that election, as shown by the fact that there were other Clinton-won states that Gore LOST by more than the margin of Nader voters that the Democrats SHOULD have won, had he run a smarter campaign and been a better politician all around.
That's a good insight. I doubt a thread like this would have been made if Republicans were nominating their traditional conservative/neoconservative candidate. These extreme right wingers are raising the stakes in a massive way to many people.
Me? I'm not worried and I think Trump's lack of... Everything that makes a solid president will be apparent by the time November rolls around. I think people will find the fear themselves.
Amibguous Cad
Member
I agree, I'm pretty heartened by this primary season, andit's gratifying to see Hillary starting to tack leftward on some issues.
There are two things I'd like to bring up: firstly, that voting third party is punished much, much more severely than not showing up at all. To my mind, the person who shows up, votes Green on presidential election and straight ticket democrat otherwise is a potential ally, and we shouldn't antagonize him by claiming that he doesn't care about his minority friends. (I actually did protest vote libertarian in 2012 as a statement against the drone program, but would have voted Obama if my state was competitive). But compare : if I tell my friends that I voted green, the response is going to be... well, look at this thread. If I tell my friends that I didn't get registered in time or had worked the night shift the day before the response would be a collective shrug. I wish a tenth of the derision that green voters got were directed at the people who don't show up at all. If it did, maybe democratic constituencies would vote at somewhere near what republican constituencies do. We actually had a great opportunity in 2000 to start a conversation about that - the messaging should have been "we came so close, every vote counts, you are part of the problem if you don't show up at the polls." Instead the democratic party decided shitting on Nader was more fun.
Secondly, people have gotten all up in arms about Trump advocating the assassination of the family members of suspected terrorists. Rightly so, because it is a war crime. It's just, it's a war crime that Obama is also guilty of. Seriously - sixteen year old kid, killed two weeks after his father was in a separate attack, for no crime other than having a father who is a suspected terrorist. The response from the left was so muted I didn't even hear about it until the comparisons to Trump were made. This is what I mean, about letting yourself be taken advantage of by a party that nominally follows your interests and never puts it into practice. If the pacifist left decided to start playing hardball with the democrats maybe we wouldn't have a democratic president that routinely send murder robots into countries we're not at war with to kill teenagers. I really can't blame anyone if that's their single issue vote, or why they'd just go third party if their choices are Trump or Clinton, both of whom are probably even more hawkish than Obama is.
SolarPowered
Member
Yes, but it helps to be a Hispanic 20 year old in NYC at the time. Gerrymandering (among other things like voter ID and inferior or few polling stations) unfortunately doesn't help the situation at all in redder states and it's something that was created and strengthened way before millenials were even born. Ultimately the Democratic party needs to do something to stimulate active, prospective and lapsed voters. All the responsibility can't fall on a presidential candidate (Hillary/Bernie) or a sitting President (Obama). I have a feeling Trump has done as much in that regard for democrat voters as the DNC has. Back in 2008 I didn't think so much hate could galvanize voters the way Obama did with his hopeful and uniting message, but here we are.
TumblingHippo
Member
"sabotage the country"
"stakes are incredibly high"
My first response is to say "same shit different election" because the rhetoric has been the same every single election from some people. Geez, especially on the right! Each Obama election his win meant "the end of America!"
So now we have a year where a candidate is truly spewing racial/divisive garbage and Godwin's law is being invoked in so many ways, and many people (like me) are just so tired of all the rhetoric and are unsure what's real and what's not anymore.
I just feel that there has to be a better way to convince fence-sitters rather than "blood on your hands" rhetoric (to be clear, which you're not saying but I've seen others state).
But Hillary is NOT continued stagnation. This is completely illogical thinking that's not based on anything Hillary Clinton has said or done this entire primary season or in her 25+ year career in politics.
At the absolute worst Hillary Clinton would just be protection and continuation of the work Obama started in his administration, but that in itself isn't stagnation because Obama's work itself was leftward progression unlike anything we've seen in decades. Believe it or not, the Republicans are so batshit crazy these days that most people would just be happy with this.
But at best? Hillary Clinton dramatically shifts the country leftward. The ACA expanded into de facto Universal Healthcare, debt free college, a cessation of deportation and a more feasible path to citizenship, equal pay and paid family leave, protection for LGBTQA equality and women's rights set in stone, up to 3 liberal Supreme Court Justices appointed, an end to Citizens United and the beginning of real campaign finance reform. The list fucking goes on.
I mean, is it that hard to read up on a candidate you have such strong feelings about?
OriginalThinking
Member
There's nothing so frustrating as arguing with someone hellbent on ideology no matter the cost.
I lived in Mississippi in 2008 and 2010.
We voted
We couldn't unseat our Republican Senators. But in '08 we unseated a Republican Representative and kept the seat in 2010. Making the Mississippi House representation 3 Dems and 1 Repub.
They didn't vote in 2014. It's now flipped the other way.
Like I said, all the political power in the world.
EDIT: Bah, adjust my dates back 2 years.
What about SCOTUS?
I got no beef with your arguments (at least what I've skimmed of them).
I'm all about - well, we don't want Trump in, but let's be more effective about winning potential allies over to the cause. Berating them is... a strategy with limited efficacy.
Personally, I think they mostly just need time - the reality of Hillary's nomination needs to be made concrete and sink in for them. Primaries aren't even over yet (even if the writing is on the wall).
When it's just Hilary and Trump left, with a couple months left to general election... I'm confident that the number willing to spurn Hilary for the antics pulled off during the primaries will be rapidly diminishing. Certainly, those still on the fence will be very much more amenable to reasonable discussion at this point, after they've had time to get over the loss of the candidate of choice.
Melkezadek
Member
I'm sorry if it sounds like the same rhetoric but it's true - now more than ever.
People are so caught up on "Don't tell me what to do! You can't make me!" that they can't see imminent disaster. Many posters in here have brought up SCOTUS and we've yet to hear that point contested. Because it's true. It's a fact. The stakes are incredibly high. People on the right, are very boldly, calling to strip away the rights of millions of Americans because of bigotry and LOCK it into place for decades. Anti-Muslim rhetoric and hate speech absolutely sabotages and undermines everything we as a country, are doing overseas.
This isn't any election but people continue to plug their ears and want to say "We'll just do it next time." That isn't reality and I feel nothing might be able to bring them around. You don't have to be a political genius to understand what's happening.
TumblingHippo
Member
If Trump wins I wonder if there will be virtual witch hunts going on of people trying to figure out who voted for Trump.
jakonovski
Member
Strong feelings? Because I wrote one sentence?
Regardless, I don't believe Clinton will do any more than Obama did, and from my pov Obama is mostly a president of drone murder, surveillance and the ever increasing welfare gap.
You should probably get some glasses to help with that vision problem.
- Status