Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: So first faithless voter is voting for Sanders in Maine [View all]La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)73. i think everything should be taken in context. in 2004 we were 4 years into a bush presidency
and were much more open to seeing our stars than we are now. there are several stars, we just need a slightly darker sky to see them and as it turns out, the sky will get pretty dark in jan.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
155 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Are we not suggesting that electors vote their conscience? Apparently his conscience
kelly1mm
Dec 2016
#5
Exactly. This was the bullshit logic some self-identified progressives used not to vote for Hillary
still_one
Dec 2016
#56
People should vote their consciences as long as we agree with what their consciences tell them.
The Velveteen Ocelot
Dec 2016
#21
if the issue is to stop trump, voting for anyone but HRC does not achieve the goal
La Lioness Priyanka
Dec 2016
#34
FWIW i have never said anyone should vote their conscience. they should vote for most good least
La Lioness Priyanka
Dec 2016
#40
yeah, i think people think too often of their individuality as being more important than the common
La Lioness Priyanka
Dec 2016
#47
I personally, would not have switched my vote. But i noticed something interesting. As mentioned,
dionysus
Dec 2016
#143
His "conscience" tells him allow Trump to add one more vote to his small "majority"?
George II
Dec 2016
#108
Yeah pretty much. That is the risk you take when promoting unbinding electors. nt
kelly1mm
Dec 2016
#112
If that was the point then it seems to have failed spectacularly since the news is of Democratic
kelly1mm
Dec 2016
#132
Hm. Claims to be a Democratic Elector and casts his vote for an Independent. Yeah.
BlueCaliDem
Dec 2016
#2
Third party, so we know exactly where he stands. He already got a shot at using Dem infrastructure
Hekate
Dec 2016
#114
Bernie lost the primaries on solid numbers. Hillary got 3 million more votes than Trump in the GE.
Hekate
Dec 2016
#113
i said none of the THREE you mentioned. which includes HRC. i have nothing to get over
La Lioness Priyanka
Dec 2016
#31
I think O'Malley had a lot of potential, under different circumstances, in 2016.
StevieM
Dec 2016
#36
honestly, if we have learnt one thing from this election, is that we need people without long track
La Lioness Priyanka
Dec 2016
#67
i think everything should be taken in context. in 2004 we were 4 years into a bush presidency
La Lioness Priyanka
Dec 2016
#73
I think the coming years will provide many opportunities for strong leadership in opposition
bettyellen
Dec 2016
#78
I don't think he'll get another shot at using Dem infrastructure and the Dem brand, tho
Hekate
Dec 2016
#121
How about electing thirteen year olds....? New blood. Fresh ideas. Idealistic.
LanternWaste
Dec 2016
#148
Everybody here has been saying that electors can choose. Well, he chose.
hellofromreddit
Dec 2016
#42
Welcome to democratic politics where people will do things you disagree with every single day.
hellofromreddit
Dec 2016
#105
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?comview_post&forum1251&pid2661366
hellofromreddit
Dec 2016
#133
you know the primary ended a while ago, right? where hillary won both super delegates and elected
La Lioness Priyanka
Dec 2016
#18
And people like him wonder why longtime Democrats fight them tooth and nail...
SaschaHM
Dec 2016
#22
In the rare event that some of the electors change their vote from Trump to Hillary
mtnsnake
Dec 2016
#23
single most ridic thing i have read today. she won cos she got 4 million more votes than sanders
La Lioness Priyanka
Dec 2016
#41
a man who couldn't even win the primary, was not about to win the election.
La Lioness Priyanka
Dec 2016
#52
Your bias is almost as obvious as your lack of evidence supporting your prophecies.
LanternWaste
Dec 2016
#149
Sanders loses primary: _HE_ lost! Clinton loses general: _THEY_ cheated!
hellofromreddit
Dec 2016
#62
However, the post you were responding to did not make that "general argument"
emulatorloo
Dec 2016
#141
both can be true. Russians and Comey did not interfere with these primaries
La Lioness Priyanka
Dec 2016
#66
Nope. Either all candidates are in charge of their fates, or they are not.
hellofromreddit
Dec 2016
#76
that is a non-sensical comment. Russia could have interfered in the primaries, but did not
La Lioness Priyanka
Dec 2016
#80
The DNC did not interfere, which is why it is not the same thing at all
La Lioness Priyanka
Dec 2016
#101
i think she quit because the left bought into assange's conspiracies
La Lioness Priyanka
Dec 2016
#74
This is a steaming pile of barnyard byproduct. 3 million votes over Trump's total went to HRC.
Hekate
Dec 2016
#117
interesting how the BLUEST states voted overwhelmingly for her, MA, CA, and NY
La Lioness Priyanka
Dec 2016
#84
I'm not rehashing the primaries. In fact, I think it's time to shut this forum down.
Vinca
Dec 2016
#85
sure, but since you mentioned where you lived, i wanted to mention how blue states went
La Lioness Priyanka
Dec 2016
#87
Many other blue states went for Bernie, but please . . . let's not torture ourselves anymore.
Vinca
Dec 2016
#90
Agree. Not the time or place for a protest vote. This is the GE, not the primary. Wrong-headed!
riversedge
Dec 2016
#100
One from MN who was dismissed and replaced and another from HI. Bernie is dead to me. n/t
seaglass
Dec 2016
#91
Oops nevermind. His vote was deemed improper and he switched to Hillary. Bernie still
seaglass
Dec 2016
#104