The "I won't support ____ in the general" Poll

I posted a few polls near the end of last year which generally found about 25-30% of Kossacks saying they won't vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election if she's the nominee.  Whether those who claim that position are all going to follow through is, of course, up for debate, but I've always tried to preface the polls with "no, really -- don't exaggerate, it's an anonymous poll, just click the true answer".  

I realize, however, that I've never seen a well-clicked poll that asked the question not only of Hillary Clinton, but of Barack Obama as well (and which broke down the probs versus defs, which is significant.)

As always, try to answer honestly.  :)  (Note: if you are/were an Edwards or other candidate supporter, try to answer the question along the lines of "the candidate I'd prefer of the two".)

p.s. -- obviously, the poll works best if we have as many poll voters as possible, so feel free to Recommend the diary if you want a wider swatch of the community to chime in :)

•  I won't support the Republican in the general.

  'Nuff said.

  by wmtriallawyer on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:45:33 PM PDT

  •  You're fast!

    :)

    by cartwrightdale on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:46:01 PM PDT

  •  But, how do you define "supporting the R"?

    Obviously you won't be voting for one.  But many -- including myself -- would argue that withholding a vote the Dem (any Dem) is de facto supporting the Republican.

    by lgmcp on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:51:10 PM PDT

    •  And it IS supporting a Republican, to not vote D!

      by labradog on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:50:02 PM PDT

      •  Not really

        Not voting (or voting third party) doesn't help or hurt anyone.  It's a neutral action.  

        If Hillary has 50 votes and McCain has 50 votes, voting for McCain gives him 51, and he wins.  Voting for Hillary gives her 51, and she wins.  Not voting has no effect whatsoever.  It's like yelling at a 17 year old that he's responsible for a candidate winning or losing by not voting.

        by cartwrightdale on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:04:07 PM PDT

        •  Evil flourishes

          when good men do nothing.

          by lgmcp on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:17:12 PM PDT

          •  Don't Forget

            "The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those, who in time of crisis, remain neutral." - Dante

            by karateexplosions on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:27:58 PM PDT

        •  How many elections have you particapted in?

          Presidential elections, that is? Your attitude reflects lack of inexpereince.

          True progressives rarely get their choice in presidential elections. Don't you know that yet?

          Good luck on that third party vote. They rarely, if ever, get any traction. It sucks, but there it is. Reality bites you in the ass every time. Grow up and quit whining.

          I supported Edwards, and will hold my nose and vote for either your centrist, or the other centrist, depending on which of the two wins.

          by ZhenRen on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:20:00 PM PDT

          •  Oops--correction to my comment

            Meant to say, "reflects lack of expereince," not "inexpereince." Its what happens when posting with the flu.

            by ZhenRen on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:24:32 PM PDT

          •  12 so far!

            Not counting the little ones.  :)

            by cartwrightdale on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:35:58 PM PDT

            •  Okay...

              Sorry to have come across judgmentally. I'm tired of all the hatred and divisiveness. I've felt my share of those feelings, too. But I'm thinking of the people in need in Iraq, in New Orleans, the homeless, the starving, the childen.

              Fuck the candidates. But lets all come together and do the right thing for the oppressed.

              by ZhenRen on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:29:54 PM PDT

        •  How 'bout when McCain has 50, Hil has 49...

          ...and you and one friend decided to sit the election out?
          Guilty.
          Guilty, guilty, guilty.
          When that 17 year old turns 18, I'd make sure they understand that silence is consent.

          by labradog on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:23:24 PM PDT

          •  You operate under an incorrect assumption

            What you're actually referring to is a form of Fascism, not Democracy.  In your framing, my vote is Hillary's to lose, not mine to give.  In Democracies, everyone starts with zero votes, and earns more.  Your way presupposes that my vote is hers to begin with, and I'm taking a proactive step in taking it away from her.  That's decidely not what happens when a voter chooses to stay out.  It is not "consent", it is the lack of consent.  In this scenario, my lack of consent for McCain is equal to that of Hillary, and therefore, does not help, nor harm.

            by cartwrightdale on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:42:23 PM PDT

            •  No vote=silence.

              Not making a choice is making a choice.
              Doing nothing is doing something.

              I'm sorry, but I can't see your civic absolution, here. I think you need to seek another answer.

              by labradog on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:57:24 PM PDT

              •  Yes, I agree

                Not making a choice IS making a choice, but it is NOT the same as making a choice to, say, vote for McCain.

                Suppose an armed madman, giddy with the idea of forcing you to make a decision that, either way, you'd hate yourself for, gives you two choices:

                1.  Either you physically torture the child in front of you, or

                2.  He'll shoot the kid in the head

                If you decline either option, leaving it up to the madman, and he chooses #2, are you responsible for killing the child, because you could have chosen "just" to torture him?  

                The fact that killing the kid is worse than torturing him doesn't increase your liability.  You chose not to play the madman's game.  It was a choice, as you say, and it did in fact result in a worse outcome for the kid.  BUT, and this is important, it did NOT actively endorse either option.  And, for the same reason we don't negotiate with terrorists, it doesn't reinforce the bad behavior of the madman -- which will, hopefully, reduce the likelihood that the man will try this failed game again.  

                by cartwrightdale on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:10:54 PM PDT

                •  The Kid's Blood Is On Your Hands, Too, Absolutely

                  You were given two choices, and as much as you might rationalize, you chose the second choice -- killing -- over torture.  Now, you might argue that killing a kid is better than torturing a kid, but you cannot argue that you just "chose not to play" the game.  Your decision not to play the game was still playing the game, and the results are no different.

                  by karateexplosions on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:34:12 PM PDT

•  Enjoy!

  And feel free to discuss why your clicked position is, like, totaly superior to the other people's clicked positions.

  by cartwrightdale on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:45:42 PM PDT

  •  These diariues are worthless

    and cause divisions. The same kind of shit went down last time and they proved to be both rediculously innacurate and fight inducing.

    Is that what you are looking for?

    by Mike S on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:51:42 PM PDT

    •  Apparently so

      by johnny rotten on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:53:39 PM PDT

      •  Remember Ric In Davis errr

        Politus? He made such hay of this idiocy and eventually completely lost his mind.

        I think there should be a  moratorium on these bs diaries.

        by Mike S on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:56:36 PM PDT

        •  You could say that about all candidate diaries

          :)

          But this one is a genuine curiosity -- the other diaries that have asked similar questions tend to only pose them in the Clinton way.  I'm curious to see if there are Clinton supporters who feel the same way about Obama.

          by cartwrightdale on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:58:01 PM PDT

          •  Well, you have your answer.

            It was a good question, and the answer is, a near-majority of Obama supporters hate Clinton, but the reverse is not true.  

            by lgmcp on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:05:50 PM PDT

        •  Sure I remember

          Howard Dean was the death of the Democratic Party. So much time and energy wasted arguing about such nonsense.

          by johnny rotten on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:00:45 PM PDT

    •  Oh I donno

      I find them fascinating.  Especially now that the right wing is all aflutter with the same talk in reverse (i.e. Rush, Hannity, Coulter, Malkin, etc. all implying or claiming they won't support McCain in the general election.)

      by cartwrightdale on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:56:39 PM PDT

      •  So you find further fighting

        fasinating?

        Michael Vick, is that you?

        by Mike S on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:58:12 PM PDT

        •  It all depends

          If the results are accurate, that there really are a significant percentage of "will not vote for _ " voters here, that's worth as much discusion as Kos' bandwidth will allow.  

          If, on the other hand, your suspicions are correct, that it's just a steam-let-off thing, and the "oh yeah well I'll never vote for your guy so there" fights are just excuses to name-call, then you're absolutely right that diaries like this, which promote divisive discussions instead of unifying ones, are indeed bad for this community.

          Someone should do a poll about that.

          :)

          by cartwrightdale on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:01:54 PM PDT

      •  Well, this is a Democratic place

        So you try to understand people who are so whatever-it-is-they-are to say "my party, right or wrong!"

        Fact is the Democratic Party as exemplified by its Congressional delegation has been drifting to the right for years.

        If the President is a Democrat and there are large majorities in each house, and we continue to see performance similar to what is going on now, the argument that the Democratic Party deserves to be supported by anyone on the left will have evaporated completely.

        But we aren't there quite yet.  Give them the rope and see if they fashion a noose out of it, I guess ;)

        by AndyS In Colorado on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:00:34 PM PDT

•  I'm neither supporter

  And don't want to vote for either candidate in the general.

  Nevertheless, with a heavy heart, I will.

  by AndyS In Colorado on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:46:50 PM PDT

•  I won't support

  Cynthia McKinney in the general.

  by Crisitunity on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:47:25 PM PDT

•  Aaargh! I clicked wrong!

  I wanted #2 but hit #3, which means the exact opposite!

  I will vote for the proverbial yellow dog, if said canine is heading the Dem ticket.

  by lgmcp on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:47:47 PM PDT

•  It's the daily state of the blackmail poll

  by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:48:27 PM PDT

  •  heh. :)

    I wonder that myself -- how many people are playing the "oh yeah well I'll sit out" card as a way of "persuading" other people.  Can't imagine it works, though -- I can't imagine a Hillary supporter saying "well, I was going to vote for HRC, but after your threat, I realize I have to vote Obama after all!"

    by cartwrightdale on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:50:32 PM PDT

    •  With about 80 voting so far

      it appears that fully 1/3 of Obama supporters are unlikely to pull a lever for Hillary, and virtually no Hillary supporters are similarly exclusive.

      I find this tragic.  Folks who can't see that withholding support from a less-than-perfect Dem is actually joining the dark side.  

      I voted Obama this week.  But it sure was no thanks to this intransigent 1/3.

      by lgmcp on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:56:28 PM PDT

      •  not everyone is a partisan voter

        I know a lot of people who went to the polls not to vote in an election but to vote for obama.  First time voters all the way, some in their thirties.

        I don't expect many people like that would be daily kos regulars, but there are a lot of them in the population at large.

        I also think it's just wrong to say that the kind of primary turnout we're getting is in any way indicative of who will show up in the general. A lot of people are only showing up because of a particular name on the ballot.

        by VelvetElvis on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:36:09 PM PDT

        •  If they think McCain is the second best choice...

          ...after Barack, I think they are proving that they are not politically aware, but are, rather, ignorant fanboys.

          by labradog on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:53:39 PM PDT

          •  you don't get it

            there is no second choice.

            It's vote for obama or give up on politics entirely.

            by VelvetElvis on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:00:12 PM PDT

            •  They can give up on politics...

              ...but politics won't ignore them.
              Politics will eat them alive, even if they don't notice it right away.

              by labradog on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:03:45 PM PDT

              •  the majority of the country already has

                that's why someone with the ability to get people into the voting booth for the first time is such an awesome thing to do.

                I registered to vote on my 18th birthday but most people don't.

                by VelvetElvis on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:05:51 PM PDT

                •  Good on ya!

                  I was in the first wave of 18 year old voters, and have voted ever since. I'm pleased to say that I have hounded several friends, and friends' kids, into becoming voters, over the years.

                  When I hear someone say they don't vote, it's like catching them pickin' their nose and eatin' the booger.   It makes a part of me completely dismiss them, though they are unaware of what they have shown of themself.

                  by labradog on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:20:00 PM PDT

•  where's Harry Reid in the poll?

  That's whom I'm pissed at today.

  by John DE on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:48:32 PM PDT

•  Saying you wont support the party is a terrible

  We should all remember that we are in this to beat the Republicans in November.  Anyone that says they won't support the party against the Republicans should be looked at with scorn and mocked as the fool they are.

  I'll gladly support the nominee in November and I will disrespect and mock anyone that says their support depends on a certain candidate winning.

  by kamosa on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:49:55 PM PDT

  •  boo!

    by PROfess PROgress on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:51:42 PM PDT

•  I voted for Obama in the N.J. primary,

  but I would crawl naked on broken glass in a blizzard, uphill 10 miles, to vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election if she earns the nomination.  Four more years of Republicans in the Oval Office is not an option.

  If she steals the nomination by arranging for her MI and FL delegates to count in her totals... I may cut back to a two-mile crawl, or stay home.  Sad for America if it comes to this.

  by Greasy Grant on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:49:59 PM PDT

  •  remember to take a video of that

    and post it on youtube...

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:51:29 PM PDT

  •  You're not the first one I've heard say that

    About Florida and Michigan, I mean, as the sticking point.  Regardless of anything else, if HRC somehow seats those states and violates the rules everyone agreed to, that is nothing short of a stolen election.  She will be completely illegitimate -- that's worse than anything Bush/Cheney pulled in 2000, IMO.

    by cartwrightdale on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:53:15 PM PDT

    •  Oh, no it's not. IMO.

      If it happens, it will be the Democratic Party caving on its own rules. That will speak to a lot more about the party, than the evil machine called Hillary.

      But Bush/Cheney'00 involved reprehensible actions by the highest court in the land. The SCOTUS decision was the real usurpation.

      by labradog on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:57:01 PM PDT

      •  It absolutely is...

        The situation we're in right now is quite perilous.  If this isn't done transparently and fairly it risks destroying the entire party.  

        by Philoguy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:20:41 PM PDT

        •  I agree with transparency.

          Gaming the system is another tactic. If it works, it is because the system (the Dem party) let it.

          That said, the rules are the rules. Change 'em, if they are wrong, but there they are, for now.

          I just think Federal level theft is worse than party level theft. But I think I mostly agree with you.

          by labradog on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:02:20 PM PDT

  •  pictures or it didn't happen.

    by kamosa on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:57:25 PM PDT

  •  Even if she steals MI and FL delegates

    I'll vote for her because I refuse to not vote or vote for a Republican.  I think that is less likely than it seemed a few days ago, though.  I saw an article in Detroit's Free Press already today talking about a possible revote via caucus, rather than throwing away our (MI) delegates or giving them to Sen. Clinton based on the originial primary vote.  My greatest fear is that she and Bill will use their influence to get the votes of the super delegates at the convention.    

    by myrealname on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:14:49 PM PDT

    •  Yes

      I'm in Michigan as well, and I greatly prefer the idea of a "caucus redo" to either (1) not having our votes counted at all or especially (2) having been told our votes wouldn't count, leaving many of us to follow Kos' advice and vote in the Republican primary instead, only to have Clinton go "ha ha they counted after all"

      by cartwrightdale on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:17:44 PM PDT

      •  I like the idea too

        I hate seeing the voters not having a say in such an important election.

        by skohayes on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:02:49 PM PDT

•  Nope, no way i'm voting for Hillary

  in the general.  

  Best of luck if she's the nominee!

  by Man in Black on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:50:18 PM PDT

  •  "best of luck" as in "fuck you"?

    Cuz that's what it comes out to, as far as I can tell.

    by lgmcp on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:59:34 PM PDT

    •  No, more like fuck Billary

      and the horse they rode in on.  I don't really want to have anything to do with that white trash dog and pony show.

      by Man in Black on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:02:15 PM PDT

      •  The Limbaugh Coulter line of reasoning

        except they don't call McCain white trash ... if I ever start reasoning like Limbaugh and/or Coulter just euthanize me ...

        by kto9 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:18:12 PM PDT

        •  McCain doesn't act half as trashy.

          by Man in Black on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:19:34 PM PDT

          •  Yes, he sips sewage more tidily...

            ...and always uses his napkin.

            by labradog on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:57:58 PM PDT

          •  You, sir, are an idiot

            McCain is a whore, and if you don't believe me, listen to his speech at the CPAC convention today- I believe it's on the front page of this very blog.
            Educate yourself.

            by skohayes on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:05:35 PM PDT

•  As of now

  I can't vote for Hillary. I detest her and her politics.  I won't help McCain, but I can't vote for Hillary.

  This however could change in November.

  by badger195 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:50:52 PM PDT

•  This is the first time I've ever wanted to say

  tl:dr to a poll. :P

  Seriously though, I don't like Hillary, but I'll vote.

  by Practical Progressive on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:51:02 PM PDT

  •  tl:dr? n/t

    by cartwrightdale on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:53:37 PM PDT

    •  tl;dr

      too long; didn't read

      by Caoilainn on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:57:18 PM PDT

•  poll is way too long...

  obama, clinton, somthin', blah blah blah...

  by gooners on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:51:12 PM PDT

  •  heh.

    I was trying to be as clear as possible to assure accuracy.  You're right, there must have been a shorter way to word that.

    Also, I forgot the "pie" choice, but in keeping with the rest of the poll I should have had:

    ( ) A baked food, with a baked shell usually made of pastry dough that covers or completely contains a filling of fruit, meat, fish, vegetables, cheeses, creams, chocolate, custards, nuts, or other sweet or savory ingredients.

    by cartwrightdale on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:55:12 PM PDT

    •  Excellent.

      It's a fine trait to be able to have a laugh at one's expense.  You are to be commended.

      by lgmcp on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:00:47 PM PDT

•  i am an obama suporter

  and a couple of months ago i would have checked that i definately would vote for hillary if she got the nomination. now i checked probably, the more ruthless things she does, such as the fox debate etc... the harder it will be for me to vote for her. but as of now i would but not feel good about it.

  by allie123 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:51:28 PM PDT

  •  I too would have voted for her at the

    beginning of the primary.  I couldn't do it in good conscience at this point.  I think sitting the election out or voting for a third party is the only moral thing to do if she's the nominee.  If I vote for her, I feel like I would be tacitly rewarding and supporting some of Billary's tasteless and mildly racist tactics.

    by Man in Black on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:57:31 PM PDT

    •  well

      you basically have a choice between a candidate who used "tasteless and mildly racist tactics" who is a member of an overall pro-AA party, or not vote or vote for McCain and get an overtly racist party in power...

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:59:44 PM PDT

      •  as i said as of now i will vote for

        hillary if she is the nominee, but if she continues to do things like the fox debates, and delegates from florida etc... i can't take much more of that, that is all i am saying.  not to mention if she votes for anything like the cluster bomb one i depending on the repub i would consider not voting.  it guiliani was in the race i would definately vote for the democrat no matter what.

        by allie123 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:07:17 PM PDT

      •  McCain seems to run clean campaigns.

        He's generally shown some character in the campaigns he's been in.  Can't say the same thing about the Clintons.  

        If you're going make the point that Hillary is better vis-a-vis McCain on Iraq and Iran, I don't buy it.  Hillary has gotten religion on these issues now that she has to win the Democratic nomination.  Once that's over, she'll go back to being Joe Lieberman with a vagina.

        by Man in Black on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:07:50 PM PDT

        •  "Joe Lieberman with a vagina"

          Made me choke on my coffee.

          by cartwrightdale on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:09:04 PM PDT

          •  Heh, I figured I'd get troll rated

            for that one.  Oh well, wouldn't be the first time.  

            by Man in Black on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:17:50 PM PDT

            •  I find both candidates not to my liking

              But either one are better than the alternative. Those who won't vote in the general disgust me.

              Whaaaaa. I'm going to throw a tantrum and not vote if I don't get my way. Whaaaaaa!

              Grow up, people.

              by ZhenRen on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:46:23 PM PDT

              •  No one's whining around here but you.

                Sometimes a choice of "neither of the above" is the right thing to do.

                Oh, and go fuck yourself.  

                by Man in Black on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:31:39 PM PDT

                •  Well, okay

                  I see you're bitter. Sheesh, I know how you feel. I didn't mean to ad to the feeling. Sorry, just sick of the divisiveness. Obama will likely win, so cheer up. And if I may remind you of so many people in need in our country, people in need in Iraq, starving people, homeless people, disenfrachised people. What's the best thing to do for them?

                  I'm thinking about them. Fuck the candidates.

                  by ZhenRen on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:23:13 PM PDT

  •  Ruthless

    Nothing in campaigning is as ruthless as debating on a network we're not too fond of.  That is just so hardcore.

    by bakerkm45 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:05:31 PM PDT

    •  you left out

      that the dem nominees agreed not to debate on fox, and the dnc.  and i am more than not to fond of fox.  they are the propagand machine for the republicans.  they are racisits and ruthless. hillary ignored all that because she wants free publicity.  i call that ruthless.

      by allie123 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:10:47 PM PDT

      •  Wouldn't Obama get free publicity too?

        If he were to debate Hillary, he'd be right there with her getting attention from Republican viewers- wouldn't that be more of that change he's always talking about- reaching across the aisle, etc.?
        He's been interviewed on Fox a couple of times, I think he can handle another debate almost as well as she can.

        by skohayes on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:12:48 PM PDT

        •  when the repblicans agree to debate on

          air america and be moderated by mike malloy is when democrats should debate on fox.  so you can legitimise a racist, sexist, republican propaganda network all you want.  but democrats need to stand for something.
          why don't you and hillary discuss the future of america with karl rove, you know he is part of fox.  i guess you think it would be fine to have rove moderate the debate.

          by allie123 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:19:30 PM PDT

        •  The difference is the reason.

          Hillary's suggesting the debates for three reasons: a) she thinks she does well in debates, so maybe she'll be able to rub some of the sheen off of Obama's image; b) she's at a money disadvantage, and this is a way to get equal attention in the national media for free; c) if Obama disagrees, she can paint him as afraid of her or Fox.

          Obama can afford his own publicity, and his reasoning and speaking style (academic) work better outside the debate format.

          by jalonzo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:48:51 PM PDT

          •  Jeez...

            Those all sound like good campaign strategies to me.  If Obama (or any other candidate of any party) held the particular cards and strengths and weaknesses that Clinton holds now, they would be doing exactly the same thing.

            If Obama wins the nomination, I would hope that he would employ the best campaign strategies that play to his strengths as well.

            by bakerkm45 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:21:41 PM PDT

            •  Oh, they are good campaign strategies.

              I question whether she couldn't have done the exact same thing without bringing Fox into it. That's my beef - she's changing the terms of an agreement into which all the Democrats had previously entered. And I view it as selling out to Fox in the process.

              But asking for lots of debates is just smart strategy - nothing wrong with that. Nor is there anything wrong with Obama saying, ok, let's debate, but not that much. Both of those are smart and clean.

              by jalonzo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:10:53 PM PDT

              •  Yep, that's all true. n/t

                by bakerkm45 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:40:20 PM PDT

•  if you do not vote AGAINST the republican

  you have a serious deficiency in your soul, have not read the newspapers for the last seven years, and should get off this site now, craven bastard

  by memofromturner on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:59:34 PM PDT

  •  its comments like these that turn off voters

    congratulations.

    by areucrazy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:04:40 PM PDT

    •  if you hang out at dkos

      you don't need me to turn you on or off...just for kicks, what part do you disagree with?

      by memofromturner on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:10:44 PM PDT

    •  As opposed to this:

      No, more like fuck Billary and the horse they rode in on.  I don't really want to have anything to do with that white trash dog and pony show.

      Which could have just as easily been posted at redstate.

      by DMiller on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:37:44 PM PDT

  •  Maybe

    We just want to show the establishment that they can't put up just any candidate and have us vote for the lesser of two evils. I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.  For the first time I can remember, I have a candidate that inspires me, and inspires me to believe in myself, inspires me to be a better person.  If he doesn't win, especially with the despicable way Hillary has run her campaign, I can show that my vote isn't a guarantee.  Maybe it will have an effect, maybe it won't, but at least my vote won't go to someone I'm supposed to vote for just because they have a d in front of their name.  IT's HER fault I don't like her.

    by badger195 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:05:01 PM PDT

    •  Yes but to punish HER for her fault,

      you will also punish yourself and all the rest of us, and in fact the entire planet. That's just wrong.  If you don't vote for the lesser evil, the greater one triumphs.  Math is even more unforgiving than you are.

      by lgmcp on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:07:46 PM PDT

      •  thank you

        another republican win in 2008 is NOT A FUCKING OPTION!

        by memofromturner on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:13:10 PM PDT

      •  How am I to expect change

        In the types of candidates the establishment puts up if I keep voting for candidates I don't even like?

        Convince me how this will happen.

        by badger195 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:18:23 PM PDT

        •  It's the Special Ed problem

          As epitomized by Bart Simpson:

          Let me get this straight: we're behind the rest of our class and we're going to catch up to them by going slower than they are?

          by cartwrightdale on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:19:59 PM PDT

        •  Your question is an excellent one.

          Precinct-level participation and primarying are the two mechanisms designed to facilitate those goals.  I agree their success has been less than stellar to date.  But it's not because the tools are not there -- it's because not enough of us have been using them.

          The general election is NOT the time or place to engineer such change. Unfortunately a non-vote doesn't tell the party a dang thing EXCEPT that Republicans appear to be stronger. In asking WHY the R's did better, sure, one possible hypothesis is, well, we'd better be more inspiringly progressive. But, so far, the more common take-away seems to have been, geez, maybe we should try to be more like the R's! In other words, the message you send by abstaining is probably not the message you intended.  

          by lgmcp on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:42:27 PM PDT

          •  Exactly the correct answer.

            Look at how the conservative movement begat the "Reagan Revolution." It was primary challenges galore -- even risking putting in weaker congressional candidates rather than suffer a "RINO" sometimes. However, in the general, they always fell behind their candidate, though perhaps with less vigor if he or she were a Rockefeller "liberal" Republican or pro-choice.

            And when it came to the Presidency, I don't remember a time until now when the any but the most extreme right wingers threatened to not vote for their person. Certainly they all fell strongly behind Nixon despite their problems with his inroads with China and his domestic policy. (Though these days, it's pretty much the modern day equivalent of Birchers running a lot of the conservative movement.)

            by LABobsterofAnaheim on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:23:53 PM PDT

            •  Actually

              the "republican revolution" started at the local level in school board elections and went up from there.

              by DMiller on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:04:14 PM PDT

              •  This is true.

                I was getting at the the story en medias res (though I had kind of forgotten about the schoolboards).

                by LABobsterofAnaheim on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 08:31:04 AM PDT

    •  You had a hard time

      choosing between George Bush and Al Gore? George Bush and John Kerry? Really?
      Honestly, I don't get this "lesser of two evils", you might want to think about where this country would be right now if Al Gore had been our president.
      Are you old enough to remember this (and I'm not being insulting, I'm just asking):

      Clinton's image of youth convinced enough voters looking for change to vote for the first time in a decade for a Democrat, thus sealing his victory.

      Pretty ironic, isn't it?

      by skohayes on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:19:30 PM PDT

•  Had Hillary run a clean campaign, this would

  have been an easy choice.

  She has made it very difficult.

  by SleepingWillow on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:06:11 PM PDT

•  Will vote Obama, as JRE is out

  Hate HRC's Iraq votes, hate her campaign tactics, am sick of Bill BUT hate Repubs more, so will vote HRC over any Repub.

  by anotherCt Dem on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:11:02 PM PDT

•  Grow up, everyone!

  Politics isn't bean bags.

  I am resolutely ABC (anybody but Clinton) now.

  However, if she is the nominee, I will work and vote for her without hesitation.

  To all of my good friends, especially those who like me are Obama supporters, get a grip.

  Clinton will not appoint anymore Alitos and Roberts.  McCain today said he would.

  McCain said there will be troops in Iraq for 100 years.  Clinton will bring them home.

  McCain has voted consistently to restrict reproductive rights.

  McCain will push to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.

  Four years of McCain will only prolong the disaster we are in now.  

  Let's be adults here and realize one of our candidates is going to lose but either one is to be preferred over McCain.

  (I do not take a backseat to anyone who claims I am not a strong, resolute Obama supporter.)

  I would hope a resolute Clinton supporter would write a similar post.

  by MoDem on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:12:38 PM PDT

  •  i'm in NJ which will vote overwhelmingly dem

    and since the electoral college discounts majority rule I don't have to vote. I was an independent until this week when I had to declare in order to vote in the primary. If i were in a swing state I would probably feel differently but i'm not. I will work and vote for other progressive candidates

    by Tanya on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:28:32 PM PDT

    •  Missouri

      I am in a state where every vote matters as we saw on Tuesday.

      I will vote for the nominee.

      by MoDem on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:58:51 PM PDT

•  Idiots:

    Those who take their ball and go home.  Waaaaah!

  by redrelic17 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:21:57 PM PDT

•  Refusing to vote - or worse...

  ...voting for the party of crime and corruption, is just self indulgent spite because your candidate didn't get the nomination.  Believing that the "straight talk" express is going to make things better for country is a delusion.

  by carver on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:29:27 PM PDT

  •  but... but...

    McCain said I'm one of his friends!!  :)

    by cartwrightdale on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:48:47 PM PDT

•  Whaaaaah!

  If don't get my way, I'm going to throw a tantrum and not vote in the general.

  Whaaaaaaaa!

  I think there are a lot of young, inexperienced, first or second time voters here.

  by ZhenRen on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:35:25 PM PDT

•  I'm an Edwards supporter and I will move

  out of the country if a Republican wins.

  How the bloody f*ck do you think I'm going to vote?

  by polecat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:50:21 PM PDT

•  An choice not mentioned

  This poll leaves out a few choices, including my position...

  I am an Edwards supporter (yes, present tense) and will cast a symbolic vote for him in my state's primary on February 19th. And I will likely vote for Ralph Nader in the fall election (or Cynthia McKinney). Hillary Obama and Barack Clinton are both unacceptable to me and growing more unacceptable with each passing day. Moreover, while four more years of a Republican White House is revolting to me, a President McCain is only mildly scary (certainly less so than President Giuliani). So, the lesser evilism argument has little influence on me.  

  I won't rule out voting for Clintbama in the fall (noteworthy as I live in a swing state), but it would take A LOT of convincing.

  by TimKidd on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:19:51 PM PDT

•  27 people, as I write

  need to think about McCain some more

  

  by its simple IF you ignore the complexity on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:29:24 PM PDT

•  There would be SOME logic to this....

  If there were any truly viable third-party movement, or even the glimmer of one as in 2000, but there ain't.

  Sometimes you really do have to choose between the lesser of two evils or, perhaps more accurately, between the heretofore mediocre but potentially outstanding HRC versus the certain-to-be-horrible JM (assuming McCain isn't just lying to people). It's called maturity.

  by LABobsterofAnaheim on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:30:54 PM PDT

  •  How about this

    A madman is holding a woman hostage.  He says you have two choices:

    1.  He will brutally rape her, or

    2.  He will cut off her arms

    If you decide not to play his game, and the choice is up to him, and he chooses to cut off her arms, are you responsible, because you could have helped assure she was "just" raped and tortured instead?

    The decision not to choose in the case above could be the better option -- if you believe that making a choice between these two bad alternatives would encourage the madman to make someone else make a similar morbid choice in the future.  The fact that dismemberment is probably worse than rape is beside the point -- you're not the one responsible for either, if you choose not to participate.  

    It's the same reason we don't negotiate with kidnappers or terrorists.  You're essentially saying "hey, here's your million bucks, your tactics worked, do it again!"

    I've certainly chosen the "lesser of two evils" before -- I'm not some purity troll who will only vote for the most perfect progressive candidate who may or may not ever come along.  :)  But I do believe that a Hillary Clinton presidency has the potential to do enormous damage to our party, and our country.  I feel that voting for her is essentially saying "yes, send us more people like this, please."  That could damage the party for generations, not just a single cycle.  Elections are chess, not checkers, after all.

    by cartwrightdale on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:01:40 PM PDT