Democrats Only: Who would you vote for (if it is Clinton v. McCain)?

[Aizen]

Bloomberg

[© tweed]

Bloomberg

there's zero chance he'd run in this matchup.

[Lief 🗽]

I'd argue that this would be the perfect match-up for him to run in, actually. Two Washington-insiders, who are the largest supporters of the Iraq war from their respective primaries. Bloomberg would have a very good of shot.

[Eraserhead]

I still don't buy that Bloomberg is anti-Iraq.

[Nym90]

Clinton.

[Person Man]

I still don't buy that Bloomberg is anti-Iraq.

Do we have a record on it? Maybe he is realistic on Iraq?

[elcorazon]

If these numbers are even close to reflective of democrats, then the crazy thing is that she actually continues to be the frontrunner.  The truth is I would have thought true political people would be MORE likely to have party loyalty, not because of some abstract party identity or some sort of weird idea that you DON'T vote the candidate, but because if they follow issues AT ALL or have any sort of underlying philosophy on the role of government or any of that, and they call themselves democrats as a result, they'd obviously prefer her positions and ideas to ANY of the Republicans.  I could see a few democrats prefering Bloomberg or going Green Party or something, but that in many cases would be folks who might do the same if Obama were the nominee, and it'd be a minority.

All this is partly why I'm for Obama.  I realize that Hillary is so disliked she CANNOT win.  ugh.

[perdedor]

A better question: if the Democratic party is going to nominate a conservative warmonger, whose entire campaign has been based on Rovian tactics, why should I continue to give them my support?

...and so you vote for someone even worse?

Listen, we either make a commitment or we don't.

My comittment is to my principles, which do include doublespeak and warmongering. Just because so many Republicans blindly vote for their candidates does not mean that we ought to. Would we ever get any meaningful change if we went that route?

[Person Man]

...more than we have right now. I would like to see our republic survive.

[elcorazon]

A better question: if the Democratic party is going to nominate a conservative warmonger, whose entire campaign has been based on Rovian tactics, why should I continue to give them my support?

...and so you vote for someone even worse?

Listen, we either make a commitment or we don't.

My comittment is to my principles, which do include doublespeak and warmongering. Just because so many Republicans blindly vote for their candidates does not mean that we ought to. Would we ever get any meaningful change if we went that route?

so you think change is ultimately MORE likely if you get MORE warmongering and MORE doublespeak for 4 years with McCain.  alrighty then.  I don't get it.  really I don't.

[Person Man]

A better question: if the Democratic party is going to nominate a conservative warmonger, whose entire campaign has been based on Rovian tactics, why should I continue to give them my support?

...and so you vote for someone even worse?

Listen, we either make a commitment or we don't.

My comittment is to my principles, which do include doublespeak and warmongering. Just because so many Republicans blindly vote for their candidates does not mean that we ought to. Would we ever get any meaningful change if we went that route?

so you think change is ultimately MORE likely if you get MORE warmongering and MORE doublespeak for 4 years with McCain.  alrighty then.  I don't get it.  really I don't.

niether do I. I am thinking it is time to retire the democratic party.

[perdedor]

A better question: if the Democratic party is going to nominate a conservative warmonger, whose entire campaign has been based on Rovian tactics, why should I continue to give them my support?

...and so you vote for someone even worse?

Listen, we either make a commitment or we don't.

My comittment is to my principles, which do include doublespeak and warmongering. Just because so many Republicans blindly vote for their candidates does not mean that we ought to. Would we ever get any meaningful change if we went that route?

so you think change is ultimately MORE likely if you get MORE warmongering and MORE doublespeak for 4 years with McCain.  alrighty then.  I don't get it.  really I don't.

Change is more likely if we o our best to keep our principles, and the principles of our party from corroding under the pressure to win elections. If we have to suffer another 4 years of a war mongering imbecile, why not let it be a Republican? Let them have the blame for it. We can then start fresh in 2012, and hopefully field a candidate who is ideologically competent.

[elcorazon]

I guess there's some sort of logic there.    I wonder if any candidate you approve of would ever stand a chance to win, though.

[Person Man]

A better question: if the Democratic party is going to nominate a conservative warmonger, whose entire campaign has been based on Rovian tactics, why should I continue to give them my support?

...and so you vote for someone even worse?

Listen, we either make a commitment or we don't.

My comittment is to my principles, which do include doublespeak and warmongering. Just because so many Republicans blindly vote for their candidates does not mean that we ought to. Would we ever get any meaningful change if we went that route?

so you think change is ultimately MORE likely if you get MORE warmongering and MORE doublespeak for 4 years with McCain.  alrighty then.  I don't get it.  really I don't.

Change is more likely if we o our best to keep our principles, and the principles of our party from corroding under the pressure to win elections. If we have to suffer another 4 years of a war mongering imbecile, why not let it be a Republican? Let them have the blame for it. We can then start fresh in 2012, and hopefully field a candidate who is ideologically competent.

We've been doing that for 40 years. How many more years can we afford to do it?

Though, maybe we will continue to lose until we start fielding more radical candidates. Counter-intuitive, but it worked for the GOP.

[ukchris82]

Not that I can vote, but I'd rather have a conservative democrat than a liberal republican in the White House.

Didn't a company list the liberal/conservative of all the senators prior to the 06 election, and all democrats were more liberal than all the republicans?