If your preferred Dem candidate does not get the nomination, what do you do?

[bad_teammate 13132]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I absolutely believe Berners are far more likely to either vote for Trump or just not vote if Bernie doesn't get the nomination.

For what it's worth, and I'm sure this is a shock to you, my exposure to D voters is not limited to surlyhorns.

Can you tell me what you base this on?

It's counterfactual to historical evidence (cue @henrygandorf to tell us that stats and history don't matter) and I daresay my exposure to the Bros is significantly higher than yours.

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 minute ago, North Austin said:

That's so nice of you to speak on behalf of the LGBTQ community but Mayor Pete is my guy.

I'm not speaking on behalf of anyone, I am referencing polling numbers and voting numbers.

‾\_(ツ)_/‾

[Js1 85109]

5 minutes ago, North Austin said:

I don't think this is true

Haven't had an LGBT specific poll, but the last one was:

Warren 31%
Bernie 18%
Biden 16%
Pete 14%

So....

Wrong again! 

[Js1 85109]

Also MAJOR LULZ at this poll

Turkelton, immortal and EuroHorn were NEVER voting Dem.

[wildcat09 29243]

I can't express the amount of physical violence anyone who refuses to vote for the Dem nominee deserves without getting banned. Yes, Bloomberg sucks. I don't care. It could be Ted Kaczynski and you'd still be morally obligated to vote for him. People talking about whether Trump is the cancer or a symptom of the cancer have it wrong. We're not talking about cancer, we're talking about AIDS. The systemic conditions that enabled Trump's election are the AIDS, Trump is the other disease that actually kills the AIDS patient. When the AIDS patient has pneumonia the doctors don't go "well the real problem is AIDS so we can only address that," they treat the fucking pneumonia.

This isn't a perfect analogy and I'd love to see a nominee who can actually address some of the systemic conditions if elected, but "eh might as well kill the patient now if I don't get my guy" is the most selfish bullshit imaginable.

[jimmyjazz 45557]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Can you tell me what you base this on?

It's counterfactual to historical evidence (cue @henrygandorf to tell us that stats and history don't matter) and I daresay my exposure to the Bros is significantly higher than yours.

History, discussions in person and other social media, news reports?  Something like 12% of Sanders supporters voted for Trump (or maybe that number included those who didn't vote, I'd have to go find those stories).  It's a problem.  I expect history to repeat, and I reserve the right to consider those people fools (and worse).

[bad_teammate 13132]

An option we have, as a community, is to just talk openly about the specific issues and problems we see here instead of trying to invent new hyperbolic metaphors.

[Brisketexan 104609]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

but "eh might as well kill the patient now if I don't get my guy" is the most selfish bullshit imaginable.

But that exact ethos is what we're going to get, and we're going to get it good and hard.

[bad_teammate 13132]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

History, discussions in person and other social media, news reports?  Something like 12% of Sanders supporters voted for Trump (or maybe that number included those who didn't vote, I'd have to go find those stories).  It's a problem.  I expect history to repeat, and I reserve the right to consider those people fools (and worse).

In 2016, 8-12% of Sanders supporters voted for Trump (depending on which exit poll you look at)
In 2008, 17-25% of Hillary supporters voted for McCain (depending on which exit poll you look at)

In this thread, there are zero "BERNIE OR BUST" posters. Not one. A couple of us won't vote for Bloomberg. All of us will vote for the non-Bloomberg nominee who wins primary legitimately.

So history isn't on the side of your argument and neither are the results of this thread.

There are, however, multiple people in this thread who say they won't vote for Sanders but will vote for other nominees.

[jimmyjazz 45557]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

In 2016, 8-12% of Sanders supporters voted for Trump (depending on which exit poll you look at)
In 2008, 17-25% of Hillary supporters voted for McCain (depending on which exit poll you look at)

In this thread, there are zero "BERNIE OR BUST" posters. Not one. A couple of us won't vote for Bloomberg. All of us will vote for the non-Bloomberg nominee who wins primary legitimately.

So history isn't on the side of your argument and neither are the results of this thread.

There are, however, multiple people in this thread who say they won't vote for Sanders but will vote for other nominees.

The difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is (and was) vast.  The difference between Hillary Clinton and John McCain was fairly small.

The difference between every Democratic candidate not named "Bernie Sanders" and Donald Trump is vast.  Even Mike Bloomberg.

Your unwillingness to vote for Mike Bloomberg makes you a fool and wholly worthy of my scorn.  If you would actually vote for Trump over Bloomberg, you would have earned far more than scorn.

Your argument is weak and you should be ashamed of yourself.  Grow up.

[Js1 85109]

Oh my god, Bad_aggy is still throwing out 12 year old statistics.

Should we post the ones that showed that enough Bernie supporters in Michigan, PA and Wisky didn't vote for Hillary and therefore swung the election? 

[Rougarou 594]

Maybe I'm just upset right now and need some time, but I'm writing in Yang. I think I just need some time. #YangGang4Lyfe

[bad_teammate 13132]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is (and was) vast.  The difference between Hillary Clinton and John McCain was fairly small.

The difference between every Democratic candidate not named "Bernie Sanders" and Donald Trump is vast.  Even Mike Bloomberg.

Be specific.

Quote

Your unwillingness to vote for Mike Bloomberg makes you a fool and wholly worthy of my scorn.  If you would actually vote for Trump over Bloomberg, you would have earned far more than scorn.

lol... what?

4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Oh my god, Bad_aggy is still throwing out 12 year old statistics.

Should we post the ones that showed that enough Bernie supporters in Michigan, PA and Wisky didn't vote for Hillary and therefore swung the election? 

Post whatever you like, my friend!

History and statistics exist and they teach us things.

Bernie supporters voted within the lines of established historical norms. Voters move around.

Does it suck that HIllary was such a terrible terrible candidate that even normal historical variation sunk her? Yes, that's sad and regrettable. I wish she had won.

 

 

[bad_teammate 13132]

8 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

Maybe I'm just upset right now and need some time, but I'm writing in Yang. I think I just need some time. #YangGang4Lyfe

Understandable.

We get emotionally invested in the candidates, the arguments, the interpersonal conflicts. We develop resentments and it often takes time to get over those.

Just think about what motivated you the most in a positive way and which realistic candidate is most likely to make that happen.

It sounds corny, but it's a healing process when your guy loses.

When Kerry got wiped in '04 after I put in a ton of work on the campaign it was devastating.

[jimmyjazz 45557]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

lol... what?

Not very hard to understand -- any Bernie supporter who would pull the lever for Trump over (say) Mayor Pete should be placed on a burning raft and shoved out into the nearest lake.

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Not very hard to understand -- any Bernie supporter who would pull the lever for Trump over (say) Mayor Pete should be placed on a burning raft and shoved out into the nearest lake.

Is that less true of supporters of other candidates?

If so, why?

If not, why are you obsessed with Bernie supporters?

[troph 24562]

I think we're up to 3 never-Bernies and... *crickets* from the "BERNIE BROOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!" howlers.
Weird!

You’re so obstuse. Bernie is great I will vote for him. You’re question was what would you do if your candidate doesn’t get the nod.

So for you, Bernie is out. Bloomberg will be better than trump that’s not in question. Not good enough but certainly better.

The fact that there are circumstances where you will let trump have an easier path to reelection when the resident trans woman tells you that’s a grave mistake proves you cishet-splain and you are voting like everyone else for your own personal motives, and because of that I think you are a hypocrite on LGBTQ issues.

[troph 24562]

In 2016, 8-12% of Sanders supporters voted for Trump (depending on which exit poll you look at) In 2008, 17-25% of Hillary supporters voted for McCain (depending on which exit poll you look at)

In this thread, there are zero "BERNIE OR BUST" posters. Not one. A couple of us won't vote for Bloomberg. All of us will vote for the non-Bloomberg nominee who wins primary legitimately.

So history isn't on the side of your argument and neither are the results of this thread.

There are, however, multiple people in this thread who say they won't vote for Sanders but will vote for other nominees.

 

 

Winning the nomination legitimately is the correct answer otherwise you are partially a Bernie or bust. A plurality don’t make a shit in politics. The rules are clear. You need a majority of delegates, period.

 

You said you would not vote for any Dem if Bernie walked into the convention with a plurality but wasn’t the nominee.

 

Forget Bloomberg, I don’t think he can money whip the electorate. Let’s consider a more plausible outcome - sanders with a plurality lead, Pete in a close second and at the convention Pete coalesces support from Kloby, Warren and Biden to get the nomination.

 

You’ve said you won’t vote for Pete under these circumstances.

 

That’s a vote against a better future for me and my people. So take your bullshit somewhere else.

 

[GW Hayduke 1952]

19 hours ago, Calihorn said:

I'll vote for anybody not named Bloomberg

 

19 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

It depends on why my preferred candidate didn't get the nomination.

Scenario 1: If the nominee coming out of the convention is the nominee who came in with the most pledged delegates, I vote for that person and go Straight D downballot. (exception: Bloomberg, who I will not vote for under any circumstance)

Scenario 2: If the nominee coming out of the convention is NOT the nominee who came in with the most pledged delegates, I leave the top line blank and go Straight D downballot.

 

19 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

Bloomberg is not a Dem candidate, so I am Blue No Matter Who. The Democrats who make up and made up this field can work together - as they did in 2008 when Obama and Hillary had a nasty primary. 

If Dem, Inc. wants to hand over the Democratic Party to Bush Republicans and give the nomination to Bloomberg, they can pound sand. 

 

When mommy brings me a plate of only 6 tendies, I throw them out the window because I deserve 10 tendies!!?!

 

You people are part of the problem. Something happened in your past that I suggest you explore. Maybe it’s as simple as having a twitter account and spending too much time on it. I get it. Or maybe your parents failed at establishing an appropriate level of emotional intelligence. Don’t blame them. Parenting can be hard so don’t hold it against them. Either way, intervention is warranted. 

[Zonahorn 8079]

2 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

 

 

 

When mommy brings me a plate of only 6 tendies, I throw them out the window because I deserve 10 tendies!!?!

 

You people are part of the problem. Something happened in your past that I suggest you explore. Maybe it’s as simple as having a twitter account and spending too much time on it. I get it. Or maybe your parents failed at establishing an appropriate level of emotional intelligence. Don’t blame them. Parenting can be hard so don’t hold it against them. Either way, intervention is warranted. 

Why decide between one racist, sexist plutocrat, when we can choose between two!

Edited February 12, 2020 by Calihorn

[troph 24562]

An option we have, as a community, is to just talk openly about the specific issues and problems we see here instead of trying to invent new hyperbolic metaphors.

You’re kidding right? You’re terribly evasive and always right. You twist what people say and lecture us about how we are wrong.

[jimmyjazz 45557]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Is that less true of supporters of other candidates?

No.

 

Quote

If not, why are you obsessed with Bernie supporters?

Because we're talking about Bernie Bros?

I have stated quite explicitly my thoughts on anyone who would vote blue in the primaries but either abstain or vote for Trump in the general.  You know I have.  Enough with your bullshit.

[troph 24562]

In 2016, 8-12% of Sanders supporters voted for Trump (depending on which exit poll you look at)
In 2008, 17-25% of Hillary supporters voted for McCain (depending on which exit poll you look at)
In this thread, there are zero "BERNIE OR BUST" posters. Not one. A couple of us won't vote for Bloomberg. All of us will vote for the non-Bloomberg nominee who wins primary legitimately.
So history isn't on the side of your argument and neither are the results of this thread.
There are, however, multiple people in this thread who say they won't vote for Sanders but will vote for other nominees.

You’re really comparing an objection vote for McCain to an objection vote for Trump....? Really?

[RDCanecutter 26268]

Thinking outside the box, literally, may I suggest an alternative?

Zombie Jefferson Davis.

Sure, he led a vicious armed rebellion that killed more Americans than any other war, but who better to appreciate the disaster of such partisan behavior? And, yes, he was a slave owner, but 130+ years in the grave have surely taught him to respect all human beings as equals. Who better than Zombie Jefferson Davis to face down racists and bigots, who would freeze in terror at his sad sunken gaze, his preternaturally calm and silent 19th-century oratorical gestures?

In life, he had wanted to annex Cuba as a state. Perhaps we could get Haiti instead.

Edited February 12, 2020 by RDCanecutter
I challenge myself to a duel

[bonnieblue 542]

Bloomberg majorly sucks in a myriad of ways and it would be so terrible to have to vote for him. However, some people aren't financially comfortable, straight white dudes and would be really harmed by another round of this bullshit (acknowledging that some harms will still accrue under a Bloomberg admin). So... maybe vote like you aren't a financially comfortable, straight white dude?

[Zonahorn 8079]

12 minutes ago, troph said:

 

Winning the nomination legitimately is the correct answer otherwise you are partially a Bernie or bust. A plurality don’t make a shit in politics. The rules are clear. You need a majority of delegates, period.

 

You said you would not vote for any Dem if Bernie walked into the convention with a plurality but wasn’t the nominee.

 

Forget Bloomberg, I don’t think he can money whip the electorate. Let’s consider a more plausible outcome - sanders with a plurality lead, Pete in a close second and at the convention Pete coalesces support from Kloby, Warren and Biden to get the nomination.

 

You’ve said you won’t vote for Pete under these circumstances.

 

That’s a vote against a better future for me and my people. So take your bullshit somewhere else.

 

In that case I'm cool with whomever the nominee. Bloomberg is literally my only no. Thankfully, he doesn't actually have much of a chance of winning.

[bad_teammate 13132]

6 minutes ago, troph said:

The fact that there are circumstances where you will let trump have an easier path to reelection when the resident trans woman tells you that’s a grave mistake proves you cishet-splain and you are voting like everyone else for your own personal motives, and because of that I think you are a hypocrite on LGBTQ issues.

Nothing I do as an individual will impact the reality that Texas is red. If there's a candidate to flip Texas on the slate, it's not Mike Bloomberg.

The moral weight of my general election choice is illusory. I still take it seriously, of course, but the "PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE BECAUSE OF YOU!" is unfounded in reason. Feels good, though, and is definitely useful in that "you're here so I'll yell at you instead of the people I actually want to yell at" way.

3 minutes ago, troph said:

Winning the nomination legitimately is the correct answer otherwise you are partially a Bernie or bust.

I'm not Bernie or Bust in any fashion.

Whoever* wins the most pledged delegates through the democratic process of the Democratic Party primary will get my vote in November. Liz, Bernie, Amy, Pete, Joe, Kamala's revived corpse,  Hillary, Kerry

Bernie has nothing to do with that logic. He's just the candidate I prefer.

(* - except Bloomberg)

Quote

A plurality don’t make a shit in politics. The rules are clear. You need a majority of delegates, period.

I'm not saying that the police should arrest the DNC if they screw over the winning candidate. I'm just saying that, if they do that, I will not vote for who they chose. I will vote for who the people chose democratically.

Quote

You’re really comparing an objection vote for McCain to an objection vote for Trump....? Really?

Yes, John McCain would've likely started a war in Iran which would be about 100x worse than anything Trump has done.

I don't like it when we start wars that kill millions of innocent people. It's really bad. Kind of the worst possible thing, honestly.

IMHO

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Because we're talking about Bernie Bros?

So this thread was just a sub-Tweet of Bernie Bros the entire time, because I thought it was about voting intentions...

Weird. I thought this was all totally in good faith!!

[SquishMitten 10400]

Only way I'd ever possibly NOT vote for the eventual D candidate is if some extreme Anti-Trump Republican won the nomination and the D ticket was Tulsi-Trump

[bad_teammate 13132]

The Chapo guys don't post here. You guys should stop yelling at us as though we are their emissaries and just go yell at them directly.

[GW Hayduke 1952]

12 minutes ago, Calihorn said:

Why decide between one racist, sexist plutocrat, when we can choose between two!

Because you are a fucking idiot and those aren’t two actual real choices, only two stupid choices your idiot brain has put together from snorting the ooze of social media for too long. Get help

[Texas73 420]

41 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

In 2008, 17-25% of Hillary supporters voted for McCain (depending on which exit poll you look at)

Who cares about what the Hillary supporters did in 2008? I don't give a shit.

It's 2020 and Bernie supporters need to vote blue if Bernie is not the nominee. 

[Zonahorn 8079]

1 minute ago, GW Hayduke said:

Because you are a fucking idiot and those aren’t two actual real choices, only two stupid choices your idiot brain has put together from snorting the ooze of social media for too long. Get help

 

Edited February 12, 2020 by Calihorn

[GW Hayduke 1952]

1 minute ago, Calihorn said:

 

Take a look at poll results bro. That should be some indication that your thought process isn’t “normal.” 

[Zonahorn 8079]

The whole point of this thread is if you will support the nominee you fucking dunce

[Zonahorn 8079]

1 minute ago, GW Hayduke said:

Take a look at poll results bro. That should be some indication that your thought process isn’t “normal.” 

Read the thread bro, maybe scroll up a bit

 

 

Edited February 12, 2020 by Calihorn

[bad_teammate 13132]

1 minute ago, Texas73 said:

Who cares about what the Hillary supporters did in 2008?

You can not care about it, that's cool, but it's important to know and learn from history.

Not a good idea to ignore it.

[jimmyjazz 45557]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

So this thread was just a sub-Tweet of Bernie Bros the entire time, because I thought it was about voting intentions...

Hey, look, bad_bernie is being completely disingenous.  THAT never happens.

[GW Hayduke 1952]

Just now, Calihorn said:

Read the thread bro, maybe scroll up a bit

Yeah. And as I scrolled through. You and two others are part of the “loser brigade” and are part of the problem.

If you aren’t unequivocally supporting any democrat during the general, you are part of the problem. Seek help

[Jack 51]

I think the biggest issue we could see is a scenario where Bernie is either #1 going into a brokered convention.  If he doesn't get the nomination after winning the most delegates, we'll have a big problem.

[Zonahorn 8079]

2 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Yeah. And as I scrolled through. You and two others are part of the “loser brigade” and are part of the problem.

If you aren’t unequivocally supporting any democrat during the general, you are part of the problem. Seek help

Would you have supported Tulsi or Mariamme? 

Edited February 12, 2020 by Calihorn

[jimmyjazz 45557]

1 minute ago, Calihorn said:

Would you have supported Tulsi or Mariamme? 

I won't answer for GW, but my answer is "hell yes".

[GW Hayduke 1952]

1 minute ago, Calihorn said:

Would you have supported Tulsi or Mariamme? 

Of course.

There is no justification for your position. I suggest you reflect and seek intervention.

[Zonahorn 8079]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I won't answer for GW, but my answer is "hell yes".

Seriously? Republican in Democrats clothing and fucking orb mom?

[Zonahorn 8079]

Just now, GW Hayduke said:

Of course.

There is no justification for your position. I suggest you reflect and seek intervention.

There is, I have no obligation to support the worst possible nominee imaginable. 

[Biff Tannen 45494]

1 minute ago, Calihorn said:

Seriously? Republican in Democrats clothing and fucking orb mom?

Yes.  It would be a hellish nightmare, but way better than the hellish nightmare we are currently enduring.

[GW Hayduke 1952]

Just now, Calihorn said:

There is, I have no obligation to support the worst possible nominee imaginable. 

We all know you have identified yourself as part of the problem. Only you can do something about it

[Zonahorn 8079]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

Yes.  It would be a hellish nightmare, but way better than the hellish nightmare we are currently enduring.

I just can't agree with that viewpoint. Everybody except Bloomberg is tolerable and electable.

[Zonahorn 8079]

1 minute ago, GW Hayduke said:

We all know you have identified yourself as part of the problem. Only you can do something about it

God forbid we have standards for a nominee that rise above racist, sexist plutocrat.

[High Plains Drifter 10976]

20 hours ago, Js1 said:

Ugh I'd vote for it but damnit, I'd hate myself.  It would be a lesser of two evils type vote.

I would never vote third party.  I'm not a retard. 

 

Lesser of two evils is orders of magnitude better than DoTArD.

[hayden_horn 11360]

18 minutes ago, Texas73 said:

Who cares about what the Hillary supporters did in 2008? I don't give a shit.

It's 2020 and Bernie supporters need to vote blue if Bernie is not the nominee. 

it doesn't matter who the democratic nominee is, we all need to unite and vote for that person.

jesus christ, this is not hard, but this is why democrats keep losing. factionalism will only lead to failure.

get the fucking criminal cabal out of the white house - that's the goal - at all costs, even if it means you vote for fucking bloomberg.

and i say that as an actual gary johnson voter in 2016. complete regret now.