Democrats who would not receive my vote in the general election.

While not particularly happy with a few of the current Democratic contenders, come November in the General Election, my vote will have to be for the Democrat. That is, unless somehow Trump does not run for round two (or is somehow prevented from doing so). If there is no Trump (or Pence) and a more centered Republican steps forward, I'd perhaps take them over the likes of Gillibrand or Harris or Biden (and a few others, who have yet to show their worth).

To automatically refuse to vote for the Democrat, is somewhat akin to giving Trump another victory. Can the nation survive another 4 years of his dismantling of gains made during the last 200+ years?

Better in my opinion to at least seat a Democrat and place some level of hope in getting back on a forward track.

(although Gillibrand would turn my stomach daily - possibly even more than Hillary Clinton)

Just begging for an argument, eh? Is that it? You wanna fight? Don't make go get Hannity in here!

I was going to reply something along the lines of Not yet. But, I already have dismissed Andrew Yang, for his potential flat tax and oddly focused anti-circumcision obsession (I could take it or leave it as I don't care. It's just a weird platform policy to hold front and center in a time when other political and cultural issues need far more attention).

And the following Who The Frak are these candidates:
Marianne Williamson
Eric Swalwell
Tim Ryan
Wayne Messam
Mike Gravel

I am one of those bad? people who pledges to support any Democratic candidate.

Not one of the 19 (almost 20) democratic candidates announced would do worse (IMO) than Donald Trump. That's the bottom line for me.

Therefore, the only logical position would be to vote against Donald Trump.

That's fair. But it seems obvious to me that most of these candidates especially come primary season don't have a very long shelf life and won't make it a quarter way through the primary whittling process. Just a matter of being realistic. I agree with many issues held by most (maybe all of the current Democrats). I find universal income fascinating (though I err towards self-acknowledgment that economics on that level aren't my strong suit).

Well, sure. I have preferences of course, and beliefs that many are less qualified or have positions that I don't agree with.

But come November 2020, there's not a single one of them where I think "You know what, I like Trump better."

I'll be following suit with you (in this department) as well.

I won't be voting for any of them.

Why don't you list the reasons why you believe Trump is preferable to Gillibrand?

What is it you're advocating, factionalism? Everyone should refuse to vote for anyone who's not their first choice. That's sounds like good news for Trump supporters.

You're very good about saying what's wrong, but pretty crap when it comes to solutions.

If you want factionalism say why you want it. If not say how you think you can avoid it, but try to say something useful for once.

You are missing the point. I am not saying that Gillibrand is worse than Trump. If I have to vote for one or the other, I would probably choose Gillbrand. The fact is that I don't have to vote for one or the other. There is no law that says I have to vote for anybody.

The issue is that if the Democrats know that they put any ridiculous candidate on the ballot to appeal to the most divisive, irrational parts of the base... they will do exactly that.

We need a candidate who will unify rather than divide, who will appeal to hope and promise rather than anger and division. Being "better than Trump" isn't good enough. I am letting the Democrats know that they need to earn my vote by nominating a candidate that will be good for the country. I was happy and proud to vote for Obama who reached out to voters and called for hope. I hated voting for Hillary who attacked voters as deplorables.

Anyone who votes for the lessor of two evils is still voting for evil. We need to do better than that. The easy solution here is for the Democrats to nominate someone who reaches out to American voters and calls for unity rather than division.

You've got umpteen candidates, an electoral process that hasn't even begun, and already you're whinging about the result.

From this side of the pond not being Trump is good enough, the man is a complete disaster for this planet politically, socially and environmentally.

If you want a good candidate get behind one. Don't moan about those you don't like, try supporting someone you do.

I am "whining" about a angry neo-liberal wing that, in my opinion, has too much influence. I am not whining about the results.

There are several candidates that I would vote for, and a couple I like. I n the past I have volunteered for candidates, I may even do this again.

Saying you will vote for any Democratic candidate simply because they put a "D" next to their name doesn't make things better. What makes thing better is demanding that a candidate be worthy of my vote.

A vote is a valuable thing. The Democrats can't take mine for granted.

ALL of the Democratic candidates are worthy of my vote when the only real choice is between them and Donald Trump.

I'm not going to support Donald Trump. I will be voting against him, no matter what.

If all left leaning voters took that pledge, it would be best. Abstaining from voting is something to be proud about. That, and voting third party when the consequences are well known and against your (and your preferred candidates agenda) is something to be shamed for doing.

I don't think your attitude is good for the country at large. It is a recipe for government by the extremes where the political elites take the votes of their citizens for granted. In a democracy, politicians are there to represent the voters. You have this backwards. I reject the idea that voters should be beholden to political parties.

How about the Democrats nominate a candidate that I would be proud to vote for? That would solve this whole problem.

Golly gee! Is that all you're requesting? That's so much easier than our previously done in the past. And it only takes the Democrats in this thread to pick the candidate? We have THAT MUCH authority and power in the national party. Heck... we shouldn't even consider our own political and cultural priorities. We just have to nominate someone YOU are proud to vote for.

That's a whole load off my back this political season. Thanks Max. Consider it done.

I didn't say you were whining. I said you were whinging, there's a difference.

Please try to note what people say not what your fevered imagination makes up.

You can always vote for Peter Crouch.



I hear he's taken to calling himself Beto O' Rourke.

I AGREE.

I am OK with this logic.

If your goal is to ensure that Donald Trump loses, and that who wins doesn't matter for you... obviously in the primary you should vote for the candidate who people like me are most likely to accept.

It is a win-win. You vote for someone I like in the primary, and I will vote for him or her in the general election. Just make sure you think of me when you are casting your all-important primary vote.

(This thread is becoming more important that I initially conceived. If you are a any Democrat is better than Trump voter... you might even see this thread as a primary voting guide).