Question for Sanders supporters

[TNF]

Just a quick, unscientific survey.

[Donerail]

Depends on what state I'm registered in and who the Republican candidate is.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes. I will fully and unconditionally support Bernie if he runs in the general election.

[TNF]

Yes. I will fully and unconditionally support Bernie if he runs in the general election.

I should have clarified - this is more about whether or not you would support the Greens or another left-wing third party if Bernie doesn't win the nomination, since he's essentially ruled out running as an independent.

[bedstuy]

Bernie Sanders would never run for President as an independent.  He's going to endorse Clinton.

[TNF]

Bernie Sanders would never run for President as an independent.  He's going to endorse Clinton.

Never said that he would, nor is that what this poll is asking. Please see my previous reply to Antonio.

[YaBoyNY]

No. I wouldn't want to risk a Republican president.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes. I will fully and unconditionally support Bernie if he runs in the general election.

I should have clarified - this is more about whether or not you would support the Greens or another left-wing third party if Bernie doesn't win the nomination, since he's essentially ruled out running as an independent.

Oh, in this case, no. I'm not voting for some random leftist nobody.

[Zioneer]

Considering that the best lefty third parties have gotten in modern times is Nader, no, I wouldn't support a third party candidate. Technically I'd vote for them (since I live in Utah my presidential vote doesn't matter, so I vote third party because I have the opportunity to vote my conscience), but I wouldn't donate a dime to the third party or hope that they could win.

I voted Jill Stein in 2012 because I didn't like Obama's terribleness on civil liberties and a few other issues, but I didn't actually want Stein to win or even take away many votes from Obama.

[Sol]

I'll probably vote for Clinton because I'll be living in a swing state and I don't want President Walker.

[Dr. Cynic]

I'll probably be voting Green if Hillary is the nominee and no credible left wing challenger emerges as an independent. I fully recognize that there is no way that my vote would influence anything, however, it's just a matter of personal choice... I simply cannot stomach her politics, or the air of superiority I sense from her and her more fervid supporters. As if she should just be crowned and not even bother to have an election at all.

I would hope that if Sanders doesn't win the primary, that he would make an independent run, even though I know he won't.

[Redalgo]

Yes - if Sanders loses his nomination bid I will be voting for a third-party candidate.

[H. Ross Peron]

No (Remembers 2000).

[Mr. Smith]

Until one can actually mount a Ross Perot like challenge again,...no.

[© tweed]

I'd probably vote third party in a non-swing state and Democratic in a 'swing state'.  odds are I'll still live in New York and will continue my streak of not voting Democratic for president.

I'm a "Sanders supporter" in the sense I'll vote for him in the primary (barring a Warren entry), but I have no plans to spend time, energy, or money on his campaign.  if he pulls off some kind of miracle and raises a serious challenge to Hillary, that might change.

[VPH]

Not unless Bernie runs as (I)... Definitely NOT voting Libertarian. I'd vote for Vermin Supreme before I would do that. Not voting for Stein either.

[Sumner 1868]

Having already voted third party in 2012, I see no reason to do otherwise in 2016.

[Samantha]

I am still planning on voting third party in the general—either Green or Socialist if they can make the ballot.

[Ebowed]

Yes, I'd be willing to vote Green or Socialist.

[NeverAgain]

No. As much as I differ with Hillary, I am a Democrat and we must stand by our motto "Don't give us another Bush!". Seriously though, I do not think any third party (Green, Socialist, etc.) has a shot of winning, so I am not going to vote for them, before I vote for Hillary.

[Ebowed]

No. As much as I differ with Hillary, I am a Democrat and we must stand by our motto "Don't give us another Bush!". Seriously though, I do not think any third party (Green, Socialist, etc.) has a shot of winning, so I am not going to vote for them, before I vote for Hillary.

Granted, I'm probably going to end up voting for Clinton due to how much the GOP nominee will make my skin crawl.  It's just that I can't rule it out because, fundamentally, Clinton doesn't convince me that she is really working towards the correct goal.

[Mechaman]

Lol at all the NOT ANOTHER BUSH responses.  You guys are aware that Nader did so well in 2000 because Gore ran a campaign slightly to Bob Doles left, right?

Maybe if the Democratic Party actually nominated LIBERAL candidates you wouldn't have that problem.

[TNF]

It's always interesting when Democrats say that they'd never do something like this because they 'remember 2000.' Oddly enough, they never seem to remember that Nader didn't just win over Democrats dissatisfied with the mechanical Al Gore, but also won a lot of first time voters or people who had otherwise given up on electoral politics. The Nader campaign didn't sink Gore, Al Gore sunk Al Gore. What kind of candidate, running in the midst of a booming economy that his party claimed credit for, can't bury a third-rate nonentity like George W. Bush in a landslide?

Democrats calling for Nader's head is yet another way they attempt to absolve themselves of having no coherent platform, ideology, or even base of support. When your candidates are robots without the slightest bit of real-life experience and nothing to offer to the American public, is it a surprise that the public goes over and votes for the Republicans? I mean, West Virginia went for Bush after voting for Jimmy Carter in 1980 (!) and Gore couldn't even carry his own home state, for 's sake. Nader didn't do very well in either of those states, so I don't know why Democrats continue to claim that 2000 was 'Nader's fault', especially when Gore, a sh**t candidate, actually won the popular vote (and probably the state of Florida) before allowing Bush to literally steal the election.

If anyone is at fault for 2000, its the Democratic Party for running a bad campaign and then, as is typical of them, surrendering at the first sign that something might require intensive fightback against the Republicans. I don't think you could create a more inept, cowardly political outfit if you tried, although the French PS certainly comes close.

[bedstuy]

Why does the Nader question have to be an either/or question?

Was Al Gore a sub-optimal candidate?  Obviously.  Did he fail to energize his base or stand for anything he seemed to care about?  Obviously.  Should Al Gore have won based on the political landscape?  Probably, but not by a landslide.  Recent elections have been extremely polarized.

Now, the question for me is what if Ralph Nader had not run or dropped out and endorsed Gore before election day.  I can only conclude Al Gore would have won Florida and New Hampshire, thus winning the election. 

I think it's pretty clear that Al Gore would have been significantly different than George W. Bush, in major ways that the Green Party claimed to care about.  They were extremely naive to think that creating a third party spoiler campaign would have advance any of their issues.  This is a two party system and there's a lot at stake, even if you find both parties and Washington itself to be terrible.

And, that's why Sanders will endorse Hillary Clinton.

[Gass3268]

No. I wouldn't want to risk a Republican president.