What are your reasons for voting for Hillary?

[Hermit For Peace]

I'm just curious about the reasons people are voting for her and why you think she'd make a good President.

[Lief 🗽]

I want four more years of Obama and Hillary is basically that.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

- tough
- smart
- pragmatic
- a strong record

That's enough for me.

[Dr. Arch]

She has a near-solid record and can connect with most of America even though she is not widely liked when she is in the spotlight when running for any kind of office. She also has strong qualifications, and I believe she would represent my interests in the best way possible given our current plausible choices. Also, Trump is not an alternative, but a self-destruct button. If Republicans would have run a respectable candidate, I might have considered him/her, but those days seem to be long behind us.

[IceSpear]

- tough
- smart
- pragmatic

That's enough for me.

In a nutshell, this. This sums it up as well though:

But I'd argue that Hillary can actually get more progressive goals accomplished than he could, since she knows how to work the system. Give me the tough as nails tenacious sketchy bitch that knows the true colors of the Republicans and the ugliness of sausage making over the naive inspirational black guy or the somewhat delusional socialist, every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Also, Hillary has always been a liberal. The "right wing neoliberal warmonger" crap is a myth perpetuated by sexist whiny bros on the internet. You can't hold her accountable for her husband's presidency, considering the Congress and the country as a whole was very right wing in the 90s. She's done a lot of great work with her advocacy for health care reform and women's rights. So although I do agree with Bernie that the Dems need to move more to the left (which is why I would've supported him over say, Biden or Cuomo or Warner) I line up much better ideologically with her than I do with a self proclaimed socialist.

In addition, I kind of have an emotional connection to Hillary since she was the first candidate for president I ever supported. I obviously didn't follow politics much in 2004 as an 11 year old, and only vaguely supported Kerry because "he is against Bush and Bush is dumb." I only truly became a political junkie in 07-08. So there's another reason, if not a great one, that I support her. Oh, and it's time for a female president. Sorry Reddit bros, it is not "sexist" to think this.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Among other reasons, I believe it's high time for a woman president.

Ooh, how I dare I?

[Virginiá]

In order of most to least important:

1. Finish the the decimation of the conservative federal judiciary from the top -> down. If a Republican is elected this year, the Supreme Court may very well remain with a conservative majority for many more years, especially if Kennedy retires at the beginning of the term to allow Trump to pick his successor. Kennedy is getting very old, after all. So at this point I don't care who the Democrat is, given the current composition of the Democratic party. Getting bad campaign finance decisions rolled back and voting rights protected again is my number one issue right now.

2. Prevent a Republican federal trifecta from setting back liberal causes god knows how long.

3. Sanders is too much of an activist-type for me, and I think once the attacks were to really start, he wouldn't fare so well in the GE. His no-PAC fundraising scheme really did it for me - It's crazy to go against Republicans without it. I want CU overturned, but I think for now it might not be wise / possible to try and take the high road to win. I' don't think he would be great for the party long-term, either. Not everyone is as liberal as him, yet he hasn't seemed like he has factored them into his campaign.

That's the most noteworthy reasons I have. I do want a woman president, but the issues really matter more than that, imo. I know that it's unlikely (so far) Democrats will be able to take back all of Congress while basically any Democrat holds the White House (as the president's party always has trouble making gains during such a time), but we can work on that later. The federal judiciary can not just be shaped at a whim.

(as for the courts - many times, there are some fundamental differences in how conservative and liberal judges interpret the law/constitution, and I have completely lost faith in conservatives after the evisceration of election laws/voting rights under the Roberts court)

[SillyAmerican]

In order of most to least important:

1. Finish the the decimation of the conservative federal judiciary from the top -> down. If a Republican is elected this year, the Supreme Court may very well remain with a conservative majority for many more years, especially if Kennedy retires at the beginning of the term to allow Trump to pick his successor. Kennedy is getting very old, after all. So at this point I don't care who the Democrat is, given the current composition of the Democratic party. Getting bad campaign finance decisions rolled back and voting rights protected again is my number one issue right now.

2. Prevent a Republican federal trifecta from setting back liberal causes god knows how long.

3. Sanders is too much of an activist-type for me, and I think once the attacks were to really start, he wouldn't fare so well in the GE. His no-PAC fundraising scheme really did it for me - It's crazy to go against Republicans without it. I want CU overturned, but I think for now it might not be wise / possible to try and take the high road to win. I' don't think he would be great for the party long-term, either. Not everyone is as liberal as him, yet he hasn't seemed like he has factored them into his campaign.

That's the most noteworthy reasons I have. I do want a woman president, but the issues really matter more than that, imo. I know that it's unlikely (so far) Democrats will be able to take back all of Congress while basically any Democrat holds the White House (as the president's party always has trouble making gains during such a time), but we can work on that later. The federal judiciary can not just be shaped at a whim.

(as for the courts - many times, there are some fundamental differences in how conservative and liberal judges interpret the law/constitution, and I have completely lost faith in conservatives after the evisceration of election laws/voting rights under the Roberts court)

Yes. This is exactly why Hillary should not be elected president. A left leaning, activist court will set the country back for a couple of generations. Having justices who interpret what the Constitution says, not what they want it to say, that is actually quite an important issue.

[BlueSwan]

I have been rudely stripped of my voting rights, since for some reason the american government don't want danes voting for the american president.

But if I could vote I would definitely vote Clinton. I have been a fan of her since 1992 and supported her in 2008 as well (even though I also liked Obama). She is incredibly intelligent and competent and has a better grasp of the issues than almost any other american politican I have seen. She is an idealist at heart but a pragmatic in practice, which I think is the best way to approach politics.

I have always thought that her main weakness was that she refuses to play to her own strengths. She was very popular as secretary of state because she didn't try to pander to the american public but just went on doing what she does best - her job. She's so much better in office than on the campaign trail. She should stop trying to pander, and totally stop trying to be folksy in any shape or form. She should just be the badass politican that will whip your ass in any debate on substance.

Some examples of her mistakes on the trail:

1) Don't claim that you evolved on gay marriage when everybody knows it isn't true. Obama can get away with that sh**t because he is deeply charismatic. You can't. Tell the truth - it isn't that awful. Say that you were not ready to sacrifice all the other important issues by openly supporting an issue that you believe to be quickly resolving itself anyway - that you would rather support gay rights in other ways.  This is exactly what being an idealist at heart but a pragmatic at work is about. Everybody already knows that you do this, own up to it, instead of lying about it.

2) Don't go back on a free trade deal that you yourself called the gold standard of free trade deals. Defend it. People don't want politicians who waver. They will often pick a politican they disagree with but respect over a politician they agree with but who wavers.

3) Push back when people attack you unfairly. Don't let others define you while you sit back and do nothing.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

In order of most to least important:

1. Finish the the decimation of the conservative federal judiciary from the top -> down. If a Republican is elected this year, the Supreme Court may very well remain with a conservative majority for many more years, especially if Kennedy retires at the beginning of the term to allow Trump to pick his successor. Kennedy is getting very old, after all. So at this point I don't care who the Democrat is, given the current composition of the Democratic party. Getting bad campaign finance decisions rolled back and voting rights protected again is my number one issue right now.

2. Prevent a Republican federal trifecta from setting back liberal causes god knows how long.

3. Sanders is too much of an activist-type for me, and I think once the attacks were to really start, he wouldn't fare so well in the GE. His no-PAC fundraising scheme really did it for me - It's crazy to go against Republicans without it. I want CU overturned, but I think for now it might not be wise / possible to try and take the high road to win. I' don't think he would be great for the party long-term, either. Not everyone is as liberal as him, yet he hasn't seemed like he has factored them into his campaign.

That's the most noteworthy reasons I have. I do want a woman president, but the issues really matter more than that, imo. I know that it's unlikely (so far) Democrats will be able to take back all of Congress while basically any Democrat holds the White House (as the president's party always has trouble making gains during such a time), but we can work on that later. The federal judiciary can not just be shaped at a whim.

(as for the courts - many times, there are some fundamental differences in how conservative and liberal judges interpret the law/constitution, and I have completely lost faith in conservatives after the evisceration of election laws/voting rights under the Roberts court)

Yes. This is exactly why Hillary should not be elected president. A left leaning, activist court will set the country back for a couple of generations. Having justices who interpret what the Constitution says, not what they want it to say, that is actually quite an important issue.

The purpose of a living Constitution, which they all should be, is that they should be flexible enough to be interpreted to reflect the priorities, values and concerns of the community it SERVES. Why have a court or any capacity for amendment if it was meant to be set in stone?

[SillyAmerican]

In order of most to least important:

1. Finish the the decimation of the conservative federal judiciary from the top -> down. If a Republican is elected this year, the Supreme Court may very well remain with a conservative majority for many more years, especially if Kennedy retires at the beginning of the term to allow Trump to pick his successor. Kennedy is getting very old, after all. So at this point I don't care who the Democrat is, given the current composition of the Democratic party. Getting bad campaign finance decisions rolled back and voting rights protected again is my number one issue right now.

2. Prevent a Republican federal trifecta from setting back liberal causes god knows how long.

3. Sanders is too much of an activist-type for me, and I think once the attacks were to really start, he wouldn't fare so well in the GE. His no-PAC fundraising scheme really did it for me - It's crazy to go against Republicans without it. I want CU overturned, but I think for now it might not be wise / possible to try and take the high road to win. I' don't think he would be great for the party long-term, either. Not everyone is as liberal as him, yet he hasn't seemed like he has factored them into his campaign.

That's the most noteworthy reasons I have. I do want a woman president, but the issues really matter more than that, imo. I know that it's unlikely (so far) Democrats will be able to take back all of Congress while basically any Democrat holds the White House (as the president's party always has trouble making gains during such a time), but we can work on that later. The federal judiciary can not just be shaped at a whim.

(as for the courts - many times, there are some fundamental differences in how conservative and liberal judges interpret the law/constitution, and I have completely lost faith in conservatives after the evisceration of election laws/voting rights under the Roberts court)

Yes. This is exactly why Hillary should not be elected president. A left leaning, activist court will set the country back for a couple of generations. Having justices who interpret what the Constitution says, not what they want it to say, that is actually quite an important issue.

The purpose of a living Constitution, which they all should be, is that they should be flexible enough to be interpreted to reflect the priorities, values and concerns of the community it SERVES. Why have a court or any capacity for amendment if it was meant to be set in stone?

True enough. However, when you have the Court specifying what a woman can do in which trimester of her pregnancy? That starts looking a lot like legislating, which is not the function of the court. Yes, I want the Constitution to be a living document but no, I do not want the nine people sitting on the high Court dictating policies that should be coming from Congress, no matter how altruistic and reasonable those nine people are. When the Court starts handing down decisions that get into the nitty gritty of specific issues, it's time to take a good hard look at whether the line is being crossed.

[Virginiá]

Yes. This is exactly why Hillary should not be elected president. A left leaning, activist court will set the country back for a couple of generations. Having justices who interpret what the Constitution says, not what they want it to say, that is actually quite an important issue.

I didn't say activist. How do you define that? Not all judges interpret the Constitution the same, and that is why there are different wings of the court that diverge on numerous issues. I don't believe in the textualist view, maybe you do, but you should also accept that there different opinions on a lot of this.

[Xing]

Most importantly, we can't afford a President Trump. Beyond that, she's reasonably progressive, has a strong record, and has shown that she has the right temperament, as well as the ability to make informed, rational decisions in a timely manner. I'm not convinced that she could get anything done with a Republican congress (honestly, no Democrat could), but if Democrats can at least take back the senate, she can definitely get some key pieces of legislation through congress.

[pho]

Mostly, I am supporting Clinton by default.

My main issue in Presidential elections is foreign affairs. I do not trust Donald Trump to not shrug off an incident that requires US intervention, whether military or otherwise. Conversely, I also do not trust him to show restraint when appropriate or build formidable coalitions in challenging parts of the world. I do not trust that Trump wouldn't forge alliances with dictatorships and undermine our global credibility (whatever of it is left). In general, I do not want him in control of our military or representing America on the world stage.

I do not necessarily believe Hillary Clinton would be a great President, but I do believe that she is pragmatic and could better navigate a crisis of foreign affairs.

[RINO Tom]

Among other reasons, I believe it's high time for a woman president.

Ooh, how I dare I?

Wut

[bmw1503]

The truth is that Hillary Clinton is the closest thing to the status quo option on the ballot now. I'm not saying that everything is perfect in the US, but people forget sometimes that change can be for the worse. I think Clinton would run a reasonably, if not spectacularly, competent administration and generally keep things from falling apart. I have absolutely no confidence that either Trump or Sanders could do that same; Sanders for reasons of naiveté, and Trump because he's an insane racist demagogue.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Unless she picks a VP pick that I like (Warren, Sherrod Brown, and their ilk), my support is more anti-Trump than pro-Clinton.

[Boston Bread]

I would have voted for every Democratic nominee since 1928.

[Hermit For Peace]

Hillary has been put through the wringer ever since the Arkansas days and she is not only still standing but much much stronger for it. Unlike Thump who feels the need to belittle everyone who he thinks slights him, Hillary lets the trash talk roll down her back.

I agree she has a steady hand, is experienced in the political scene, and knows how the game is played. She's not a babe in the woods like Thump.

While most politicians say they are going to deliver the sky, I do believe that she will try to get her agenda accomplished; she is a workaholic. She isn't going to take crap from anyone, including world leaders. That's my impression, anyway.

And yes, I do agree that it's time for a female to be President, and it looks as though the right one has come around just in time for this election. Hillary is showing in her words and deeds that females across the country can aspire to be anything they choose, there is no limit, and I think that will benefit society as a whole going forward.

[SillyAmerican]

Yes. This is exactly why Hillary should not be elected president. A left leaning, activist court will set the country back for a couple of generations. Having justices who interpret what the Constitution says, not what they want it to say, that is actually quite an important issue.

I didn't say activist. How do you define that? Not all judges interpret the Constitution the same, and that is why there are different wings of the court that diverge on numerous issues. I don't believe in the textualist view, maybe you do, but you should also accept that there different opinions on a lot of this.

Interpreting the Constitution is not the issue; I understand that there will be differences of opinion regarding how to apply what the Constitution says. Where I draw the line (and where I believe the Constitution draws the line) is at the point where Justices start getting into the minutiae of an issue. The politics of a person on the Court should be of secondary importance; the primary concern should be having people that will not try to impose their politics from the bench, as that goes beyond what the Court was designed to do, and will just lead to problems down the road.

[Virginiá]

Yes. This is exactly why Hillary should not be elected president. A left leaning, activist court will set the country back for a couple of generations. Having justices who interpret what the Constitution says, not what they want it to say, that is actually quite an important issue.

I didn't say activist. How do you define that? Not all judges interpret the Constitution the same, and that is why there are different wings of the court that diverge on numerous issues. I don't believe in the textualist view, maybe you do, but you should also accept that there different opinions on a lot of this.

Interpreting the Constitution is not the issue; I understand that there will be differences of opinion regarding how to apply what the Constitution says. Where I draw the line (and where I believe the Constitution draws the line) is at the point where Justices start getting into the minutiae of an issue. The politics of a person on the Court should be of secondary importance; the primary concern should be having people that will not try to impose their politics from the bench, as that goes beyond what the Court was designed to do, and will just lead to problems down the road.

That's a fair point, and also one I would argue is central to Shelby v Holder, where the Roberts court conservative majority gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013. They said that the 40 year old formula was out of date and thus unconstitutional, despite there being nothing about expiration dates for voting rights protections with that formula in anything. They said it wasn't applicable anymore, and guess what, right after they gutted it, all those states they said weren't relevant to it anymore immediately began passing voting restrictions. Their reasoning was wrong, and the rationale for their reasoning was wrong, and I haven't seen so much as an apology so far for the egregious harm they have caused to fair elections since 2010.

I don't necessarily want bench legislators as you stated but I'm sick of the Roberts court and conservative judges in general in regards to voting rights and campaign finance regulations. I want them gone. If liberal judges end up having their own problems, we can talk about replacing them whenever that time comes, but things need to change right now.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Unless she picks a VP pick that I like (Warren, Sherrod Brown, and their ilk), my support is more anti-Trump than pro-Clinton.

[Mr. Illini]

I helped carry her to a close victory in the Illinois primary and will cast another vote for her in November because although I had initial reservations, her policies are the most well thought out and pragmatic of the field.

Bernie has neither of these qualities, which are very important to me.

[Goldwater]

Not being Trump is the only good reason I can think of for anybody to support her.

[Ebowed]

Two reasons:
1. The Supreme Court
2. Stop Donald Trump

Do I wish there were a more compelling case?  Obviously; but there it is.  The alternative isn't worth the risk.