Seriously, my fellow lefties...

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Just some thoughts.

I've never been thrilled about Hillary's candidacy. Not in 2008 and not now. I'm far from the sore losers crowd, still bitching about her being an evil corporate shill etc. I just have doubts about her being the right person for the job, which I've been trying to explain in various threads. Unfortunately, during the course of this campaign she's been mostly deepening my doubts than the opposite. I strongly supporter Sanders during the primary and I think he'd make much better nominee. I'd also be much more comfortable with such people like Biden or Warren, had they ran.

But that doesn't matter. We live in a real world where we must make more or less pragmatic choices. I may be lukewarm about Hillary, but I'll take her not only over Trump, but any other Republican candidate. The reason is simple: whatever her (and pretty much any other nominee) flaws are, she's still the progressive candidate in this race and she would have to govern in the way accommodating a Democratic base. And every Republican President (no matter how "muh moderate") would have to govern in the way to accommodate the GOP rank-and-file. That's a reality.

That's why I'm tired with those arguing it would be better to let the Republicans win this one and get "better candidate" next time, or those who would waste their vote for Stein or Johnson, effectively helping to elect Trump. Even if Libertarians and Greens filled actually competent candidates, it still would hold. Consequences of such approachment could be really dire not just for the United States, but the entire world.

As a Polish voters I'm pretty much accustomed to have to make pragmatic choices in the voting booth. I'm afraid many Americans are not.

Sorry for rambling, just wanted to make my positions clear.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I agree with your sentiment as a whole, Kal, but I don't see what the problem is in voting for Stein/Johnson if one lives in a safe state.

Fair point. There are certainly states that are just safe, but... maybe it's just my experience as a Polish voter again, but I've seen many races that were considered a lock being blown away by people either deciding to cast such another vote ("because it doesn't matter") or not bothering to show up ("meh, she/he is going to win anyway")... Yeah, I know it won't apply to Massachusetts or Alabama, but I'd be cautious nonetheless. Especially since some polls makes certain states appear more solid than they really are.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

You should be glad that the Republicans nominated that moron Trump. I just wish Democrats had nominated a decent person like SandersWebb or Chafee.

FTFY

Webb fanboyism is so weird.

I've seen weirder

I once dreamed that I was being dominated by Tulsi Gabbard.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

For the record Averroes has stated on AAD that he is not voting for Stein due to her anti-vax pandering and even kookier running mate.

And Nathan think of how often jfern got thrashed here for an example of someone else.

Let's not put Nathan in the same sentence with jfern, OK?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It's pretty much yet another thing I dislike about the electoral collage system. "I live in a safe state, so I don't have to make a difficult choice." All right, no sane person would claim it would enable Trump to carry Massachusetts or Clinton to carry Oklahoma, but there are many less solid states that people take for granted already. Yes, one single vote won't decide the election, but a number of such single votes can. I think the expression "death by a thousand of paper cuts" fits here very well. I'm not trying to be hyperbolic here, but history is full of races that were considered safe and that's why it turned the other way.

I don't like words like "sacrifice", but I understand what people mean by this. During two last presidential election I had to vote for a centre-right candidate over a hard right candidate. It wasn't pleaseant, but I don't regret it.

By the way Nathan, no one is trying to "guilt trip" you. We're all trying to make you see reason. Each and every one of us have had our own personal moments where the election become "real" and the stakes became apparent. It's not as if BK, oakvale and I have always felt this way about this contest. BK considered voting for Stein, so did I and oakvale once expressed ironic support for Trump. We all came to see the light and realized the stakes and adjusted our perception of this election accordingly; you should as well, I think. Think about this. Ponder upon it.

Truth is I had brief moments like "well, just let the f**king Trump win so we can move on after this in better direction", but, alas, it doesn't work this way. There's little too much at stake and, personally, as a European, I'm legitimately scared with the possibility of Trump in helm of U.S. foreign policy (I don't consider Hillary particularly good at this field, which her term as SoS only confirmed, but come on, it's a matter of degrees.)

I won't criticize Nathan for not intending to vote for Hillary since he lives in the safest of safe states. I just don't want people to get too comfy with such thinking in other parts.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I just imagine how dumb any of this reasoning would look in the future. I'm sure there were people who voted for Hitler because Hindenburg had health issues or the Social Democrats had the wrong tax policy or their faith prevented them from voting for a Catholic party or whatever.

But in retrospect that was dumb and so is any reason you come up with for not voting Clinton.

"Look, I don't like Mr. Hitler's racial policy, but I will vote for him just to send a clear signal the old guard, represented by Hindenburg, must go. Just a statement "

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

For the record Averroes has stated on AAD that he is not voting for Stein due to her anti-vax pandering and even kookier running mate.

And Nathan think of how often jfern got thrashed here for an example of someone else.

Let's not put Nathan in the same sentence with jfern, OK?

Their position is the same.

Not necessarily. Jfern is just anti-Hillary zealot, who'd vote for David Duke first. Nathan would probably vote for her if not for living in a safe state (on which I disagree with him, as you can see above).

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Part of the reason I have no problem voting for Hillary is I'd be f[inks]ing embarrassed to be in the basket of deplorables that make up most of her "leftist" critics. People like H.A. Goodman, the "Sane" "Progressive", Lee Camp and jfern are such awful Horrible People and I want NOTHING to do with any of them.

A legitimate criticism from the left is one thing (and I see no reason why Hillary should be immuned from criticism). Being a delusional idiot like those you've named above is diffrent.

I mean, you can be critical and at the same time be able to see there's no better option at the table.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

OK, can we stop with this now? It's clear no one is being convinced and I don't think more holier-than-thou posturing and creative name-calling is going to change things. It's especially silly considering that, if you want to argue for voting on purely rational grounds, you will lose. Pretty much everybody who has studied the issue agrees that the only "rational" vote is not to vote at all. So we've got to accept that anyone's reasons for voting are fundamentally emotional. That doesn't mean there isn't a right choice to an election (and yes, in 2016, this choice is clearly Hillary), but it means it makes no sense to call people "selfish" or "special snowflakes" when they are just doing what they think is right.

The truth is, most of those who vote (one was or another) aren't doing it based on a rational analysis. It's hard to remember for us, political junkies.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Part of the reason I have no problem voting for Hillary is I'd be f[inks]ing embarrassed to be in the basket of deplorables that make up most of her "leftist" critics. People like H.A. Goodman, the "Sane" "Progressive", Lee Camp and jfern are such awful Horrible People and I want NOTHING to do with any of them.

A legitimate criticism from the left is one thing (and I see no reason why Hillary should be immuned from criticism). Being a delusional idiot like those you've named above is diffrent.

I mean, you can be critical and at the same time be able to see there's no better option at the table.

Except I've never read any legitimate criticisms of Hillary from the left. Pretty much every attack on her is just shouting "CORPORATIST NEOLIBERAL IMPERIALIST WARMONGERER" over and over.

I'd say criticizing Hillary from the left for her Iraq vote, among other things, is valid, but that's not extremely relevant in this contest (and I'm saying this as someone who strongly believes we should never forget about that chapter).

In present day contest (issues that are at hand now), I actually agree with you.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

You can almost smell the desperation in here.  It was the GOPs fault Trump was nominated, it will be the Dems fault if he wins.

Of course it will be. If Hillary blows what was supposed to be a winnable race over a vulnerable opponent she'll go down in history as a pathetic joke, no matter how her hacks are going to spin it.

Desperate? No. Worried? Every sane person should be.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

It's quite telling there are just a few states with a candidate leading with over 50% No, I don't predict a 1992-style situation, but it's weird to see Rhode Island as "barely democratic" on the electoral-vote.com.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm under impression some people are most offended not with Nathan considering not voting for Hillary (under special circumstances, like MA being safe D), but because he's openly unenthusiastic about this. I'm unenthusiastic about this too (not American voter, but it's not like only the U.S. is going to be affected), so you guys can f** you.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Such a pointless thread. Who will see this? #RIP

You just had.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

A lot of Stein supporters seem to have this idea that Stein would win in a landslide if only we had a fair voting system. That's not the case. Stein is a terrible candidate and would lose badly under any remotely reasonable voting system.

'

For real?

I mean, I've seen one comment on the yahoo stating something like "if not for Hillary-Trump drama, Stein would win easily", but dissmissed it as a sole moron. I can understand supporting Stein, but believing she'd have a shot. Come on.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm a bit distasted with the way some are trying to shame posters such as Nathan or Averroes for the fact they're uncomfortable about voting for Hillary. Hey, I'm pretty sure many of our ardent Hillary fan would've find it uncomfortable to vote for Sanders had he won the nod.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm a bit distasted with the way some are trying to shame posters such as Nathan or Averroes for the fact they're uncomfortable about voting for Hillary. Hey, I'm pretty sure many of our ardent Hillary fan would've find it uncomfortable to vote for Sanders had he won the nod.

But we would have done it anyways.  Not bitch and moan that we had too.

Maybe you, but you don't expect every ardent Hillary supporter wouldn't voice their dissapointment, to bigger to smaller extend.

I'm a bit distasted with the way some are trying to shame posters such as Nathan or Averroes for the fact they're uncomfortable about voting for Hillary. Hey, I'm pretty sure many of our ardent Hillary fan would've find it uncomfortable to vote for Sanders had he won the nod.

Um, no? Why would someone who found Sanders too far left vote for the Green Party instead?

Try not to associate everything with the Green Party for just one moment.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Enjoying acting like a dildo, Jerry?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Let me add on a final point  Yes I find voting third party, even if just flirting when you have a man who will allow the murders of millions, thorough outright extermination or through wars started over petty squabbles shameful.  That is how I feel.  If this isn't the way others feel, ok.  But I will and have shamed many in my personal life will continue to do so.  A mad man is running amok right now.  I want to make sure he doesn't screw up and destroy everything.   Sorry if you don't like it, but I will keep doing it.

Since you feel such a need to compensate online, enjoy yourself

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Xahar is, as always, right. I don't really understand why people treat voting as some extension of their personality where it's important that they can feel nice or whatever? It's so adolescent.

As someone who in several elections had to make a choice between two options neither I was too happy about I can understand. Still, there's nothing wrong with feeling discomfort. That's why I would vote for Hillary is I were U.S. voters, and that's why I prefer her to win, as a world resident.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

There's an important difference between "I'm not happy about voting for X" and "f**k everything else, I just don't like X so much I don't care what's the alternative."

And the idea that at least a portion of enthusiastic Hillary supporters wouldn't voice their discomfort of voting for another Democrat is ludicrous.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm a bit distasted with the way some are trying to shame posters such as Nathan or Averroes for the fact they're uncomfortable about voting for Hillary. Hey, I'm pretty sure many of our ardent Hillary fan would've find it uncomfortable to vote for Sanders had he won the nod.

Um, no? Why would someone who found Sanders too far left vote for the Green Party instead?

Try not to associate everything with the Green Party for just one moment.

So...Hillary supporters would be considering to vote for Trump then? Obviously not, so Johnson? Not sure what you mean. Also virtually no Hillary supporters had any issues supporting Obama in 2008 (those dumbass "PUMAs" were irrelevant.)

When will you understand "not enthusiastic" =/= "I'm voting for Trump/Johnson/etc."?