I voted “absolutely yes”. I probably won’t actually vote for her, but I answered the question imagining that I lived in an even slightly swingish state. Her support for the Iraq war is the primary factor which makes me not want to vote for her unless absolutely necessary.
Also:
WOOLWICH!
From the choices:
I would combine these two, and say: “Absolutely i would. It won’t feel right, but stopping Trump is [del]important[/del] essential.”
The second option quoted above is not something i really agree with. Not because it’s wrong, per se, but because voting for Clinton herself also, in some important ways, defeats the purpose of what Bernie has been fighting for.
To be quite frank, i think the country would be in a better place if the current Democratic primary were actually the general election:
Clinton (R) v Sanders (D)
Edit: I should add that my willingness to vote for Clinton would depend on living in a state where Trump had a non-zero chance of winning. If the Dems clearly had the state sewn up, i’d be willing to vote Bernie to register my support for his principles, and my dissatisfaction with Clinton and the DNC.
You should have added an “Other”.
I’d vote, if Bernie is VP.
That is a thought, but it takes a Democratic Senator out of Vermont.
This is me: I don’t like Ms. Clinton for a number of reasons, and I’m probably not voting for her in November, but only because I live in a state that’s going D no matter what. I’ll either leave the President line blank or vote for Jill Stein with a clear conscience. If I lived in VA or NC or PA or whatever, though, I’d be holding back my reluctance and filling in the bubble for Hillary.
Ms. Clinton is running high single digits or low double digits in the 18-34 Dem group for some very legitimate reasons.
(FWIW, I voted “absolutely yes” in the revised spirit of the question, acting as if I were in a swing state)
There’s a selection bias at work here, y’know :). Plenty of people did NOT live through Bush. They just don’t post on messageboards in 2016.
I’ve said from the beginning that I expect Clinton to embroil the US in a war, as has every president in my lifetime with the exception of Carter (who himself ordered unwise military actions) and possibly Clinton depending on how you define “embroil.” But Trump is a lot more jingoistic in his talk about use of the US military. I expect Clinton to support corporate welfare programs. But Trump will pass jobs out to cronies like nobody’s business. I expect Clinton to flout the rule of law when it suits her. But Trump won’t go a week without causing a constitutional crisis, due to his absolute contempt for limits on his power.
I’m nowhere near crazy about Clinton. But Trump’s unbalanced megalomania is not something I want near any sort of real power.
That one’s simple. Clinton knows what she’s doing. Trump doesn’t. Sure, ideologically I’m not even sure there’s much real daylight between them. Trump is masquerading as a conservative, Clinton as a liberal, due to the needs of their primary campaigns. I suspect they see eye to eye on most issues and are both moderates. So might as well vote for the moderate who is less likely to do something crazy.
Trump, schmrump.
It will NEVER AGAIN be acceptable for the USA to have a Republican in the Oval Office. Never.
So, it’s not merely a matter of needing to stop Trump specifically. It’s about a need to keep the Republican Party from the Presidency.
I suspect Bernie’s anger will get the best of him and turn off a good number of his supporters when they see how incapable this guy really is. You can already see it playing out with the Democratic party in his refusal to accept that he’s lost the nomination. People hate sore losers.
But like many said, a vote for Hillary is a vote against Trump. Most of his supporters have a desire to beat Trump, at any cost. That’s all that counts.
I don’t think Trump is Hitler and much of what he said in terms of the race baiting was probably just schtick in order to attract the majority of angry white voters that are required to win the republican nomination. I don’t think he’s especially friendly to the plight of minorities, either, and he’s probably as insensitive and elitist as a lot of wealthy republicans are in that regard. I just don’t think he’s the hate monger that he’s portrayed himself to be.
But there are real dangers of a Trump presidency, and real differences between him and Hillary. A supreme court that would be the most conservative and pro-corporate since the 1920s for starters. Repeal of Obamacare and no chance for anything to replace it for at minimum 4 years and most likely 8, and even then, without a supreme court to sanction it, we could be talking decades before this opportunity arises again.
Beyond that, the real danger is that Trump is completely unqualified and in over his head. Whom would he hire to fill cabinet posts? Would he even listen to his advisers? The man has absolutely nothing to guide his decision making. He would be the least qualified president in history at a time when the office has never been more immense and complex.
Ultimately, I’ll just put it this way: Say what you want about the Clintons and their support of Wall St. They also gave us an assault weapons ban, the Brady Bill, stimulus packages, tax increases on the wealthy, and progressive justices like Ruth Bader Ginsberg. They also promoted women and minorities to positions of real power within the administration, which had not been done before. They also tried – long before Bernie Sanders claimed fame – to implement health care reform. It was this effort and the NRA that left the Clintons and Democrats paying a serious political price and losing control of congress. It’s also worth pointing out that Clinton’s national security team was, unlike their foolish successors, fully fixated on the rising threat of Islamic terrorism and tried to go after Osama Bin Laden. They were also wary about wading too deep into troops-on-the-ground conflicts but acted to intervene wisely in the former Yugoslavia when it looked like that situation was widening into a broader conflict. I, too, am not especially fond of the Clintons but this idea that there’s no difference between them and republicans and that they haven’t tried to promote progressive causes is, quite bluntly, revisionist history, and it’s nothing more than a foolish quest for ideological purity and alignment with their own special view of progressive politics.
I’ll probably vote for Vermin Supreme. I find his ideals of a pony-based economy and zombie run alternative energy program intriguing.
But I’m in like, a super-duper blue state. My vote doesn’t matter.
Folks who state they live in a super safe blue state, and will be voting their TRUE preference for the presidency, make me scratch my head. If enough people feel this way, and vote accordingly, wouldn’t/couldn’t this shift enough votes away from Clinton to allow Trump to “sneak in”? Please tell me I’m wrong, but, if I’m right, won’t you please reconsider your voting strategy? I don’t want to wake up on the day after the election and have to face the prospect of The Donald leading this country for the next 4 years, when all it would’ve taken was people voting the lesser of evils. Trump MUST be denied the White House, please, do all you can to insure this happens. We cannot leave ANYTHING to chance. Thank you.
They won’t. And if they did, polls would show it. But more importantly, they won’t.
Our allies are probably questioning the American sanity now that Trump got the Rep nomination. Imagine what they would think of us if Trump won. All of you PLEASE VOTE. Regardless of where you live.
I’m sure it would. Also, what Clinton does.
I live in Ohio, one of the battleground states, and you better believe I’ll vote for Clinton in November, even though I voted for Sanders in the primary. She doesn’t give me the warm fuzzies, but I suspect she’s had to develop awfully thick skin over the years. I think she shares many of the same aspirations and goals that Sanders espouses, but she’s learned that sometimes you have to take half a loaf if you don’t want to starve. But the bottom line is that she isn’t Trump and she isn’t a Republican. I’m a blue speck in the red swath of rural western Ohio, but I hope the eastern urbanites will put our state firmly in the blue camp.
Others have made some good posts on why Trump would be much worse than Clinton. Another reason is who he’d nominate for Supreme Court, he just released a list of 11 people on his list:
I don’t know who Clinton would nominate, but they won’t be anything like Trump’s list.
At least he didn’t list his sister.
Well, yes, if Clinton does a good job in office and is popular, it will make it less likely that a left-winger will win the nomination next time around. Conversely, if she does poorly and is unpopular, it will help the Left. And if we thought she was more likely to do well than poorly, we would probably be supporting her rather than Bernie!
So, even aside from the fundamental immorality of the Machiavellian “I wish harm upon the country so that my side can come to power!” thinking, that’s not really a concern for me.
I think you are overgeneralizing from the dynamics of this particular primary election. There’s no intrinsic reason that a candidate can’t draw support from both white progressives and minorities; in fact, that’s exactly the coalition that defeated Clinton the last time she ran for the nomination.
We do have these things called “polls” which will alert us if there is any danger of Trump winning our state. I assure you I will be watching these closely and have a very low threshold for moving my vote to Clinton.
I would vote for almost anyone other than Trump. I think he’s probably the only candidate in my lifetime who hasn’t had it as his goal to make America great. His goal, plain and simple, is to get himself as much attention, money, and power as possible, in that order, with no regard at all for what happens to everyone else. And there are too many ways that a president can get great amounts of attention for himself at terrible cost to the rest of the nation.