I haven’t seen any mention of this anywhere, but this actually seems like a notable campaign flub. Very few people actually think believe in Hillary as the best possible presidential candidate. But a whole lot of people are being badgered into voting for her because the alternative is worse. So a lot of votes for Hillary are not going to be voting your conscience, they’re going to be strategic voting against a greater evil.
I, myself, have been waffling on whether I’m going to vote my conscience and vote “none of the above” come November (which is a fun quirk of Nevada’s ballots, but we don’t get write-ins) or to accept the lesser evil in the face of the greater. I feel like she just gave me permission - and actually, in fact, instructed me - not to vote for her.
I suspect there are more than a handful of left-leaning people who were on the fence about actually voting their conscience and voting for Stein or a write-in who also essentially took this absolving them of being compelled to vote for her and to actually vote their conscience.
And this wasn’t just an off the cuff gaffe - an offhand poorly planned remark - but she mentioned it in speeches and left that tweet up there.
I think it shows a pretty lack of self awareness, or maybe a fundamental misunderstanding of what’s meant by “vote your conscience” if she thinks that’s what most people will be doing when they vote for her. She definitely shouldn’t try to make this a plank of her campaign advertising strategy. She should probably just stick with “Think about Trump. You’re stuck with me.”
First off, congratulations for having swallowed two decades of concerted, baseless attacks.
Second off, yes, “vote your conscience” seems very apropos for Clinton to use. You have the choice of an person experienced in both the executive and legislative branches, has demonstrated competence, class, and cool - or you have Trump.
What does your conscience say?
Who do you want leading the country?
Do you think voting for some third-party will salve your precious ideals? They certainly won’t win.
Think “the establishment” is rigged? Get off your ass in the off years and vote. Vote local, vote state, not just the Presidential. Change the system as a whole, and don’t try to impose it from the top.
Fuck me, but I’m getting sick of people pining for some perfect Hollywood candidate, Martin Sheen declaiming in Latin. Guess what? Not gonna happen.
I haven’t swallowed two decades of concerted, baseless attacks. You have no idea why I don’t like Clinton. It’s not because I think she killed Vince Foster or whatever nonsense you’re assuming. I actually thought for decades that she was the target of baseless Republican attacks and have only come to dislike her very recently, when I’ve had reason to learn about her.
And no, “vote your conscience” is exactly the opposite of “vote for the lesser of two evils” - when people say “I have to vote my conscience”, they’re not saying “I’m going to vote for the guy person I rate a 20/100 because the alternative is a 4/100”, they’re saying “I’m going to vote for someone I can actually live with, even if it’s meaningless”
Your post is essentially exactly what I was talking about - being badgered into voting for Hillary because “you have to”, and that’s exactly what her campaign needs. And it’s also exactly the opposite of “voting your conscience”, so it’s really stupid for her to encourage people to do that.
I think there are far, far more mainstream Republicans who are struggling with whether to vote for Trump than there are liberals who are struggling with whether to vote for Hillary. Probably by a factor of five or ten, is my guess.
So there may be, say, a half million, maybe a million Democrats actively thinking about not voting for Hillary. There are almost certainly many millions of mainstream Republicans agonizing over Trump.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Bernie Sanders used his speech tonight to echo the same theme – anyone with any social conscience should avoid Trump and make sure Clinton gets elected, or something like that.
Do you think lifelong Republicans who are struggling with the idea that their party is being taken over by The Donald will find that voting for Hillary is “voting their conscience”, or do you think she’s just indirectly encouraging them to stay home?
Bit of a false dichotomy, there, surely? Doesn’t your conscience tell you that you have an obligation to do what you can to reduce the influence of evil?
“Choosing the lesser evil” is an obviously conscientious stance. In fact, I can’t th ink of any reason for adopting that stance which isn’t a conscientious reason.
She only gave you permission if your conscience is the kind that allows you to stand by while a greater evil unfolds.
No, it’s not a false dichotomy. There needs to be a dichotomy for “vote your conscience” to be its own idea. If “vote your conscience” means “vote strategically against the candidate you like the least”, it’s meaningless. It’s the exact opposite of what “vote your conscience” means.
Voting your conscience is refusing to be forced to vote for someone that you think is unfit, and instead voting for someone who you can fully support.
IMO, yes. Like you, I think that sends the opposite message that she needs to. If anything, the primaries showed that there’s a significant number of Democrats who would much prefer Bernie Sanders for a variety of reasons. Similarly, there are a number of Republicans who are unhappy with Trump being their party’s candidate. I certainly know that a number of them might be willing to hold their noses and vote for Hillary out of fear of what a Trump presidency might mean, but if they really vote for what they believe in, they might just end up voting third party instead as they would see Gary Johnson or Jill Stein or even some other third party candidate as the most conscientious choice. Hell, if anything, the fact that Gary Johnson is polling as high as he is–much higher than third party candidates usually do–regardless of what you think of his politics, means that enough people are fed up with both candidates that they’re not willing to vote for the lesser of two evils.
I agree here. Why does someone have to have swallowed whatever nonsense to not think she’s the best candidate? Just anecdotal, but I know plenty of lifelong Democrats who find Hillary detestable for a number of reasons, most of which have nothing to do with various conspiracy theories or scandals. Some don’t like her economic positions, particularly concerning things like TPP and NAFTA. Some don’t like the idea of political dynasties (if she’s elected, we’d have a Bush or Clinton in one of the two most powerful offices for all but 8 of the last 40 years, 44 if she gets re-elected). She’s pretty much the poster child for a Washington insider.
I’ve been encouraging people with this since I’ve been old enough to vote, but it seems to actually be sticking this year, and to an extent in the most recent Virginia gubernatorial election. If you really see both as bad and like a third party candidate a whole lot more, I think your vote means more that way. Sure, your candidate is extremely unlikely to win, but if enough vote that way, or maybe just from polling, a major party candidate might be persuaded to adjust their platform enough to win some of those votes. Especially in a case like this year, as polls are looking now, the third party voters will likely cover the final gap between the Trump and Clinton, which means the loser could have won if they’d done more to make themselves more appealing to those voters. Whereas, a vote for the major party is just a rubber stamp on their platform if you don’t believe in it.
And, that’s not to say people shouldn’t vote major party. I always encourage people to vote for who they honestly think is best person on the ballot, whether it’s a major party candidate, a third party candidate, or even an independent. I don’t personally encourage write-ins, unless there’s some sort of organized write-in campaign, because that’s not going to even amount to a statistical blip, so it doesn’t send any sort of message to our elected officials.
The part that amuses me in this is how in the last couple elections I remember a sentiment like “Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line”, whereas this year, it looks like it’s the Democrats falling in line, and the Republican party is on the verge of breaking apart rather than falling in line.
Either way, it seems to me that “Vote your conscience” just makes a lot of assumptions about the average voter that just doesn’t match my personal experience. I can honestly say that in my everyday life, I don’t know anyone that is excited about voting for her; I know plenty that are terrified of Trump and will choose her as the lesser evil.
Not at all. “Vote your conscience” means “vote as your conscience directs”. I’m assuming that your conscience tells you that you should vote in the way which will tend to produce the best outcome for the republic. If you think that a Trump presidency would be worse for the republic than a Clinton presidency, then surely your conscience would dictate a vote for Clinton?
Both are possible, as is wasting a vote on a third party or write-in candidate.
The thing about “your conscience” is that it is inherently a subjective phrase. Some people may interpret it as “vote for a candidate even if they have no chance to win,” others may think “vote for the candidate who isn’t going to destroy the country.” Just because YOU think it means “vote for your perfect candidate no matter how impractical it may be” doesn’t mean that is what other people’s conscience is telling them.
Why do you think the anti-Trump effort chose that slogan?
Look, I can imagine a hypothetical in which voting my conscience means voting for Hillary Clinton would be (a) voting my conscience, but would be (b) difficult, because I believe I’d personally do better under a Trump presidency. Because, sometimes, the right thing to do – for the sake of my fellow citizens, and my country – is to act against my own interests, because my conscience commands it.
I merely add that, it’s still voting my conscience in a situation where I believe a Trump presidency would be bad for the nation in general, and for me in particular; this time, voting my conscience is easy – but so what? The dictates of my conscience would remain the same even if obeying then suddenly got harder.
So the Hillary campaign and Ted Cruz are now aligned. Most people won’t get to vote their conscience because None of the Above isn’t one of the choices.
Pence also voted for both.
The resolution was to allow force but lesser steps were stipulated before going to war.
Her mistake was trusting Bush/Cheney to not rush straight to war.