I'll Never Vote for Hillary Clinton

@natturner,

That stereotype overlooks the rest of the beast. It just has to be reformed, not destroyed.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

There is not a grass roots movement to change anything. Sanders and Trump are engaging is old fashioned, retail politics. I'll believe in a "grass roots effort" when I see state houses and US representatives change.

1 Reply

@engineer,

It is still forming and already you say it has not accomplished anything. The seed grows the bean before the can of Beanie Weenies can emerge, grasshopper.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

Earlier, revelette2 wrote:

No, if Nader didn't take votes away from Gore, we wouldn't have had Bush or Iraq because Nader's votes would have went to Gore.

Then revelette2 wrote:

Forgive me what difference does it make the reason why he lost then or she might loose now?

I don't know. Why did you bring it up in the first place?

1 Reply

@natturner,

natturner wrote:

But didn't Gore end up with half a million more popular votes than Bush?

Yes, but since the US doesn't elect its presidents by popular vote, I'm not sure why that would matter.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

His campaign, despite whatever flaws it might have had, was good enough to win the presidency if Nader had not decided to run.

If Gore had been a better candidate, Nader wouldn't have had to run.

Really, no one knows who Nader voters would have chosen if Nader hadn't been in the race. It's just as easy to surmise that they would have stayed home or left the top of the ticket blank rather than vote for Gore. In the end, Gore lost because Gore ran a lousy campaign.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

Why did you bring it up in the first place

?

I didn't, just joined in the posts about it.

In the context of the result of those votes which didn't go to Gore no matter if he ran a good campaign or not is the same as the results of votes which do not go to Hillary. The votes which went to Nader would have went to Gore as exit polls said Gore was the second choice. If people do not vote for Hillary she will have less votes, if it comes down to a close race it could make the difference between winning or loosing to Trump. Those who do not vote Hillary will have to accept responsibility of their vote going to Trump regardless of whether Hillary runs a good campaign or not.

Clear now why the reason does not matter of either having less votes if the results will end up being the same?

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

You mean like Nader getting Bush elected over Gore. You do realize Nader intentionally ran a third party election because he thought after 8 years of Bush the citizenry would be so pissed that they would elect a dem. congress. But of course he underestimated the intellegance of the average voter. My congressman is God like, yours is a prick.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

Quote:
Why did you bring it up in the first place
?

I didn't, just joined in the posts about it.

Why did you do that if it didn't matter?

revelette2 wrote:

The votes which went to Nader would have went to Gore as exit polls said Gore was the second choice.

You don't know that.

revelette2 wrote:

If people do not vote for Hillary she will have less votes, if it comes down to a close race it could make the difference between winning or loosing to Trump.

If Clinton ends up with fewer votes than Trump, then she deserves to lose. That's how elections work.

revelette2 wrote:

Those who do not vote Hillary will have to accept responsibility of their vote going to Trump regardless of whether Hillary runs a good campaign or not.

If Clinton runs a good campaign, she won't have to worry about people voting for other candidates. She'll win. If she doesn't, however, she'll lose. Blaming the voters for the candidate's failures is rather like blaming consumers for not buying a product.

revelette2 wrote:

Clear now why the reason does not matter of either having less votes if the results will end up being the same?

What?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote joefromchicago:

Quote:

If Gore had been a better candidate, Nader wouldn't have had to run.

The Democrats were the only major party concerned about the environment. The Republicans consider anyone concerned with the environment a "libtard" who is pushing an unproven religious idea, (global warming), upon the public. So what does environmentalist Ralph Nader do? Start up a Green Party to take environmentalist votes away from the Democrats.

Quote:

Really, no one knows who Nader voters would have chosen if Nader hadn't been in the race

Sorry, that has been disproven. Exit polls, pre-election polling, and exhaustive analysis of the down-ballots of the Florida counties showed you are wrong. The published study by Herron and Lewis shows that the Nader vote in Florida took over 10,000 votes away from Gore, and Gore lost Florida by 537 votes. And the entire election with it.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/lewis/pdf/greenreform9.pdf

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Quote Rabel222:

Quote:

You mean like Nader getting Bush elected over Gore.

Of course, exactly like Nader getting Bush elected over Gore. But the diehard Bernie supporters-a minority of Bernie supporters to be sure-would rather act innocent and say that they just don't see how they can be sure that 97,000 votes for the environmentalist Ralph Nader really affected Bush's 537 vote margin of victory over environmentalist Al Gore.

We can only hope that most Bernie supporters don't listen to them, and realize what is at stake.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

You don't know that.

Quote:

To the editor: Ralph Nader answered his own question in the 2000 presidential campaign: so a third party candidate can be a spoiler. ("Ralph Nader: Why run for president if you don't have a real chance?," op-ed, May 15)

George W. Bush won the popular vote in Florida by 537 votes, giving all of the state's electoral votes to him rather than Vice President Al Gore. Nader received 97,488 votes in Florida, and several studies conducted after the election indicated that about half of Nader's votes would have gone to Gore and about one quarter would have gone to Bush. Without Nader, Gore would have been elected president.

source

Quote:

If Clinton ends up with fewer votes than Trump, then she deserves to lose. That's how elections work.

I understand you feel that way and you are correct. However, the result of that would be disastrous because it would give us a Trump presidency who thinks it is a good for North Korea to have nukes. I am hoping more people consider the state of their country and by extension the rest of the world when they make their vote choices. Hillary will not be as bad as Trump in that regard and in many other regards.

Quote:

If Clinton runs a good campaign, she won't have to worry about people voting for other candidates. She'll win. If she doesn't, however, she'll lose. Blaming the voters for the candidate's failures is rather like blaming consumers for not buying a product

.

We are not talking of whether to buy organic eggs or commercial ones, but rather the leader of the US which is far more important to not just us, but the rest of the world.

Quote:

Clear now why the reason does not matter of either having less votes if the results will end up being the same?

What?

Forgive me, I get in a hurry sometimes (a lot) and leave out words or just word things in an odd way to where it doesn't make sense. When I said "either" I meant either Gore in 2000 and Hillary now in 2016. The result of less votes for Gore resulted in a Bush presidency because people chose to vote for Nader out of some kind of protest vote.

It seems we are now at the same cross roads and the same decision now. The result of Hillary having less votes because liberals want to make a protest vote will mean a Trump presidency.

I don't understand how a liberal or progressive could make that decision knowing ahead of time what the result could end up being if they live in a state where the vote comes down to meaning the difference between winning and loosing. Hillary will not be as conservative or as impulsive as Trump, she will not encourage NK to have nukes, she will not insult all Muslims and deny them entry in our country. She will fight for workers rights and a higher minimum wage and other progressive issues and she will appoint a progressive supreme court justice in which a democrat controlled congress will approve.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

The Democrats were the only major party concerned about the environment. The Republicans consider anyone concerned with the environment a "libtard" who is pushing an unproven religious idea, (global warming), upon the public. So what does environmentalist Ralph Nader do? Start up a Green Party to take environmentalist votes away from the Democrats.

I won't go into the grim details of the 2000 Gore campaign. Suffice it to say that millions of voters bought Nader's message that there wasn't a "dime's worth of difference" between Gore and Bush Jr. True, there were some significant differences, but Gore ran such an inept campaign that many people either believed that there was no real choice between the two candidates or else felt that Gore had otherwise not earned their votes and that Nader was the better choice.

Blickers wrote:

Sorry, that has been disproven. Exit polls, pre-election polling, and exhaustive analysis of the down-ballots of the Florida counties showed you are wrong. The published study by Herron and Lewis shows that the Nader vote in Florida took over 10,000 votes away from Gore, and Gore lost Florida by 537 votes. And the entire election with it.

Sorry, that's not proof. At best, it's a surmise. To prove that Nader voters would have voted for Gore if Nader weren't in the election, we'd have to re-run the 2000 election, only this time without Nader. We can't do that. What we do know is that Gore couldn't convince millions of Nader voters to vote for him. That was Gore's problem, not Nader's.

0 Replies

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

source

Nope, Gore's loss was entirely Gore's fault.

revelette2 wrote:

I understand you feel that way and you are correct.

Thanks. More people should think that way.

revelette2 wrote:

We are not talking of whether to buy organic eggs or commercial ones, but rather the leader of the US which is far more important to not just us, but the rest of the world.

You do understand I was using an analogy, right? If you want, I can explain that for you.

revelette2 wrote:

The result of less votes for Gore resulted in a Bush presidency because people chose to vote for Nader out of some kind of protest vote.

People voted for Nader because they believed that Nader was the best candidate. Isn't that what we want voters to do? If Gore wasn't able to convince Nader voters that he was a better choice, how is that the fault of Nader voters? There never would have been a Nader candidacy if Gore had adopted some of the policies that Nader was advocating. Instead, Gore ran a thoroughly inept campaign that stuck fast to Clintonian centrism while trying desperately to distance itself from Clinton himself. For those who were dissatisfied with Clintonism, Gore offered no alternative, and for those who despised Clinton, Bush offered a better choice.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

I really have nothing new to add. Hillary would be a much better president than Trump. I don't think any reasonable person can deny it if they were honest.

Interesting article.

The 'Never Clinton' Campaign

1 Reply

@revelette2,

I really like the post that someone posted a while back equating picking a president to picking a nanny for your child.

At the end of the day, there are going to be two nannys that you can pick to take care of your children (i.e. the environment, the poor, social security, etc). One of them is Trump. The other is Clinton. Bernie would have made the best nanny (in some people's minds), but he's off the table now.

Who do you want to take care of your children, because someone (Trump or Clinton) HAS to?

1 Reply

@maporsche,

Quote:

I really like the post that someone posted a while back equating picking a president to picking a nanny for your child.

At the end of the day, there are going to be two nannys that you can pick to take care of your children (i.e. the environment, the poor, social security, etc). One of them is Trump. The other is Clinton. Bernie would have made the best nanny (in some people's minds), but he's off the table now.

Who do you want to take care of your children, because someone (Trump or Clinton) HAS to?

A good way to look at the reality we will be facing in the general election. The article I edited in talks about that reality.

0 Replies

Quote Blickers:

Quote:

Sorry, that has been disproven. Exit polls, pre-election polling, and exhaustive analysis of the down-ballots of the Florida counties showed you are wrong. The published study by Herron and Lewis shows that the Nader vote in Florida took over 10,000 votes away from Gore, and Gore lost Florida by 537 votes. And the entire election with it.

Quote joefromchicago:

Quote:

Sorry, that's not proof. At best, it's a surmise. To prove that Nader voters would have voted for Gore if Nader weren't in the election, we'd have to re-run the 2000 election, only this time without Nader.

Oh really. So according to you, we really have no way of knowing that 97,000 votes in Florida for a minor party environmentalist candidate might have caused the loss, by 537 votes, of a major party environmentalist candidate, (Gore) to a Republican candidate whose party believes global warming is just a big scam?

Sorry, but several studies have shown that is wrong. I linked one of them. And now you are advocating the same failed strategy over again. If the country has a Republican House, Republican Senate, and Republican President, you can not only say goodbye to environmental concerns, (witness Flint, Michigan), you can say goodbye to Social Security and Medicare in their present form. And a whole host of other programs going back to the New Deal.

1 Reply

But we are not allowed to vote our conscience, according to the group think going around here.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

You are perfectly allowed to vote your conscience. You are perfectly allowed to make a case for how you vote on A2K. You are also perfectly allowed to get critical posts by others showing where your voting patterns led last time, and might very well lead this time.

0 Replies

I'll Never Vote for Hillary Clinton

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know