10 Reasons Why Progressives Need to Vote for Hillary

I am not a Hillary fan, but I am in total agreement with the logic behind this article...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...ns-Why-Progressives-Need-to-Vote-for-Hillary#

So, aside from all the (*)(*)(*)(*) that the right slings at her, she is a good bet to keep another Republican out of the WH. BTW..I have contributed to Bernie Sander's campaign because his voice will force Hillary further left.

 

Hillary can't win, not with the amount of baggage she has and just wait until the campaigns get rolling, she will be spending 100% of her time defending herself and you do not win campaigns when you have to do that.

She is not going to inspire anyone to come out and vote, they will probably stay at home ensuring a republican victory.

On top of that, people are tired of the democrats, and as always happens, they give the other side a shot eventually.

The left would stand a better chance with O'Malley honestly.

 

Leftist told us that Dick Channey was too old.
Leftist told us that Romney was too rich.
Isnt Hillary both of those?
Not sure why I'm even responding to your post. You hardly never have rebuttals

 

Why would you need a rebuttal??? My post made everything crystal clear.

BTW..Vampire Cheney's age is not the reason that people reject him...LOL

 

That's why I am voting 3rd party. Because the left's goal is to keep the right out of the white house, as you stated. The right's goal is to keep the left out of the white house.

I prefer someone who actually DESERVES to be Commander in Chief.

That's where our logic varies

 

Doesn't a third party want to keep both the left and the right out of the WH?

Isn't that kind of the same thing?

 

Wasnt the left winged media and noise machine that even questioned Channey was too old even for a heart transplant?
Yep.
Didn't the leftist media make fun of his age? Yup
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...y-looks-old-because-hes-stolen-so-many-souls/
And Hillary is old and a one percenter that doesn't care about the little guy.
If so why no tip? If the leftist is all about the poor fast food workers because of their struggles why wouldn't she leave a tip for these poor people?
Why? Because she is an elitist.
Why is it ok for her to travel at 90 mph on the roads during her campaign trails? She doesn't have to abide by the laws of us little people?
http://m.insideedition.com/headline...-clocked-at-92-mph-in-65-mph-zone-in-the-rain

 

A 3rd party isn't an actual party. I think you need to google what "3rd party" actually means.

IMO there are quite a few who just want to act in America's best interests...not right or left wing extremism.

Right and left are all about monneeyyyyyy

 

My thoughts are that the dems had better start throwing their weight behind O'Malley because I don't think Hillary will make it out of the primaries.

 

LOL, it isn't me that needs to google what a third party is.

Third parties are ones that are neither democrat nor republican who have filed paperwork to declare themselves an official national party.

God, what are they teaching you guys in school now?

 

Still hoping Webb jumps in.

 

*Shrug*. I'm going to hear what the eventual candidates have to say if and when they run, and decide accordingly.

Same thing in the general.

However, I have very little confidence that the GOP process will produce a winner free of the sort of crazy-stupid promises they have to make to appease the GOP base. So by default I'm likely to vote for the eventual Democratic nominee. But if the Dem candidate turns out to be extreme, and the GOP candidate turns out to be more moderate, I'll vote GOP.

 

I think Spooky is right. Hillary won't inspire Dems to come out and vote; they'll either be very pro-Hillary already, or they'll grudgingly vote to keep the GOP out.

That said, I want to hear from ALL candidates some very specific proposals on how they intend to make our lives better. Not 'repeal Obamacare' [tell me what you would do specifically in its place], 'make college more affordable' [tell me exactly how you intend to do that], 'return faith to the United States' [which faith(s)? How would you also protect those not of your chosen faith?], etc etc. All this lofty rhetoric turns me off to the notion of voting at all; I feel like I'm voting for either a dream or for a promise, neither of which end up happening. I do still vote, but like many in my generation, my attitude is more and more apathetic. My vote means very little except as a value towards a candidate's victory.

 

I bring this up every presidential election, but:

Given our election system, voting third party isn't much more than a protest vote. Indeed, it's most likely going to help the candidate you LEAST want to see elected.

I'd love to see viable third parties. But to do that, you have to change our election system first.

The first and most-important thing: ranked-choice voting, so that people can vote for the candidate they REALLY want without worrying that it will be a wasted vote.

Second thing: Pushing states to draw congressional districts using algorithms or some other de-politicized method, so that parties can't create "safe" districts for themselves, and we end up with way more competitive districts that can't be taken for granted.

Third thing: Do what we can to minimize the influence of money on politics, so that the third-party candidate can't simply be drowned in a gusher of money from his/her opponent. Many countries, for instance, disallow political ads outside a short (six-week) window leading up to the election. Combine that with some sort of public-funding mechanism for candidates who meet basic requirements in terms of support (so that all serious candidates have essentially the same resources available to them), and you have a focused, level playing field for candidates to get their message out.

 

In my opinion, most progressive have very few principles that they won't put on the back-burner, if not sacrifice completely, to obtain political victory. That seems to be their #1 principle. "I'm about winning!" is why they allow destructive ideas like open borders amnesty with Mexico to continue.

- - - Updated - - -

Would you consider Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist, to be "extreme"?

 

Setting aside their political beliefs for a moment, I think Sanders is a much better person than Hillary, when it comes to decision-making ability and integrity. I do agree that Hillary is probably personally much more conservative leaning on economic matters than the rest of her Party, though she's a huge feminist.

 

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a protest vote. Just because those that vote the other two parties are too stupid to see through the partisan hackery, doesn't mean my vote is a waste. I'm exercising my right to vote for someone I believe would make a great president, regardless if I know they won't win.

 

I know...that's exactly what I said.

It's not an actual party. It's neither right, nor left.

Apparently they taught us the same thing they taught you.....

 

it only matters if you live in a swing state, a presidential protest vote would be voting GOP in California or Democrat in South Carolina

anyway in response to the OP, if you like GW Bush you will love Hillary. Hillary talks leftist smack but all of her Senate votes were along the lines of the GOP, she is just GW Bush with a pantsuit that will parrot whatever talking point that polls well on any given day. Bill was more in Wallstreets and the big banks pockets than GW Bush ever was

if you really think hillary will clamp down on big banking practices just look at her and Bills history

When Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas, a Goldman Sachs connection helped land him the White House. Ken Brody, a Goldman executive, took him to dinner with high-powered Wall Street types in early 1992, at the onset of Clinton's presidential campaign. Former Goldman co-CEO, Robert Rubin, provided Clinton early legitimacy in the banking community. Clinton made him Treasury Secretary.

Under Bill Clinton’s administration, two acts provided big banks further federal influence. First, the 1994 Reigle-Neal Act allowed mergers across state lines. Instrumental in pushing that act was former Bank of America CEO, Hugh McColl Jr. who first met Hillary Clinton in 1992. (In 2008, he contributed to Hillary’s presidential run, before endorsing Obama.)

Then, came the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, which repealed the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act that had separated deposits from speculative transactions. It allowed investment and commercial banks, as well as insurance companies to merge, consolidating their use of depositors’ money to assume greater risk.

Hillary Clinton was no bystander during Bill Clinton’s term (or Obama’s, which was just as friendly to Wall Street, with some anti-fat-cat rhetoric thrown in). Upon leaving Washington, she was paid $200,000 per speech at Goldman Sachs gatherings, notwithstanding government support for the firm while she was secretary of state.

The Clinton Foundation received donations of $500,000 to $1 million from Wall Street firms including Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, as well as $250,000 to $5 million donations from foundations and funds associated with Citigroup, Bank of America and Goldman Sachs.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/nomi-prins-hillary-clinton-jeb-bush-big-banks-article-1.2207139

A vote for hillray or jeb bush ? po- tay- toe or po- tah- toe. Same thing just more of the same old same old for the Beltway bandits

 

I challenge you to show me any third party that is not either right or left.

There are none, they are all just slight variations of the republicans or the democrats which is why they can never garner enough support to win. In order for a third party to have a completely different platform then the other two major parties they would distance themselves so far from voters that they would never have a chance of even getting 3 votes.

That is the problem.

 

yeah I would go blue for Jim Webb or Joe Manchin, progressive Democrats won't let that happen though

 

He calls himself a Socialist, but that doesn't mean he's hard-core or even medium-core. I haven't heard him call for nationalizing industries, for example.

I haven't paid much attention to him; if he becomes a serious primary contender, I'll see what his actual positions and voting record are.

 

Ugh, I know, I worded it poorly. I meant, they are not a part of the Democrat, or Republican. Obviously they will have views that will reflect one another, as any view can be a part of any party.

I think you just took me too literally. I was saying that "voting 3rd party isn't a party". As in third party contains mixtures.

 

Way to get all defensive and miss the point.

I have no issue with protest votes; I simply noted that, given our current system, a vote for a third-party candidate IS a protest vote.

As I said, I'd love to see viable third parties. Which is why I pointed out the steps we need to take to give third parties a chance.

It sounds as if you'd rather cast a protest vote than work for the things that would make your third-party candidate a real option.

 

There is nothing I can do to create a third party viable option. It's the money that needs to be taken out of politics. I can't control that. I can just vote.