The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[Raw Shark]

If I didn't love my current signature so much (it never stops being relevant!), I would sig that.

Thanks! It's a good sig. It makes me smile.

[Flagg]

I have a question for those who are saying Sanders can't win and should suspend his campaign.

If the argument is that by continuing to campaign up until the convention, to allow all voices to be heard etc is "damaging for the nominee" and it's impossible to for him to win and so forth, why aren't we also annoyed at Cruz and Kasich etc staying in the Republican race when AFAIK Trump has a similar (or larger) leader over Cruz to the lead Clinton has over Sanders? I get that we don't want Trump to be the Republican nominee, but shouldn't the principle apply both ways?

Or are we only applying it to the Democrats because we hate the Republicans?

Well, since the Republicans have policies which would further damage the nation and planet, yes.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Like I said, I get that it's a good thing for the Republicans to fail. What I'm questioning is why Sanders dropping out is being spoken of as a good thing on principle without applying the same principle to the other side. It's the hypocrisy I'm curious at, not the idea of saying "fuck you Trump."

[maraxus2]

Like I said, I get that it's a good thing for the Republicans to fail. What I'm questioning is why Sanders dropping out is being spoken of as a good thing on principle without applying the same principle to the other side. It's the hypocrisy I'm curious at, not the idea of saying "fuck you Trump."

There's more of a case to be made that Trump shouldn't be the nominee on democratic grounds. He's won less than 40% of the votes and less than 40% of the delegates. Granted, that's quite likely to change in the near future, but he's still on track to become the nominee despite the majority of the Republican Party voting against him. Hillary, by contrast, has pretty unambiguously beaten Bernie in both delegates and total number of votes cast. She's the choice of a substantial majority of Democrats, while Trump really isn't. And FWIW, Hillary has a bigger lead vs. Bernie than Trump does against Cruz (popular vote, not delegates).

That being said, Bernie staying in the race makes sense at this point, as he can use it to try to heal whatever lingering wounds remain and can bring it back to being a policy/message campaign, rather than a nasty personal one. His voters certainly deserve as much, provided he tells his more conspiratorially-minded supporters (looking at you, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon) to chill the fuck out.

Kasich should absolutely drop out, though. He's being an a-hole by staying in the race this long. NOT GONNA HAPPEN, JOHN!

[Flagg]

Like I said, I get that it's a good thing for the Republicans to fail. What I'm questioning is why Sanders dropping out is being spoken of as a good thing on principle without applying the same principle to the other side. It's the hypocrisy I'm curious at, not the idea of saying "fuck you Trump."

Because hurting the presumptive Democratic nominee (barring asteroid strike) by continuing to attack them only helps the eventual Republiturd. Especially since BernieBots are resorting to Republican talking points to attack Clinton.

[maraxus2]

I don't think it's entirely secret or surprising that Cruz is worse for the Republican Party than Trump is.

I mean Trump's biggest problem for the party is that he's just not that conservative. Hell he probably wouldn't even institute stoning for women who get abortions what a lily livered librul!

(Also that they all hate him, but as I believe I said in this or the previous thread, they all hate him equally no matter what faction of republicanism they represent, so at least he's not blatantly the creature of one wing of an already fractious political alliance.)

Trump would be terrible for America. Cruz would be worse for the Republican party, but he's all they've got now.

Maybe, maybe not. Cruz does hold positions that most of the public opposes, but he also doesn't have Trump's sky-high disapprovals. Hillary would probably squash Cruz, if for no other reason than he's also really super unpopular nationwide and his, um, personality really turns off a lot of voters. If the voters repudiated him, they'd be repudiating the most conservative wing of the Congressional GOP.

On the other hand, Trump is so broadly unpopular with so many people that he could lose the House. At the very least, he would drag down a lot of Senators in tough races simply because it's tough to fight against an 8-10% national swing. At least with Cruz, there's substantially less likelihood that the GOP loses control over their one bastion of power in Congress, and lord knows what the Dems would do if they had unified control and a thirst for vengeance against the past eight (or even longer!) years of GOP opposition. Killing the filibuster outright would not be out of the question, and I certainly hope it is.

[Hillary]

Like I said, I get that it's a good thing for the Republicans to fail. What I'm questioning is why Sanders dropping out is being spoken of as a good thing on principle without applying the same principle to the other side. It's the hypocrisy I'm curious at, not the idea of saying "fuck you Trump."

Basically, Cruz hasn't lost yet. If it goes to a contested convention, he's a pretty warm favourite to win. Kasich should have gone a long time ago. By staying in he has increased Trump's chances of victory significantly - I'd go so far as to say he tipped the balance if Trump wins.

That's just from a Rep POV though. Personally, I think the more the Reps tear themselves apart, the better.

[maraxus2]

Once again, I can count on Kevin Drum to put into words feelings that would take me whole essays to explain

Here's why I never warmed up to Bernie Sanders
by Kevin Drum April 29, 2016 3 min read original

With the Democratic primary basically over, I want to step back a bit and explain the big-picture reason that I never warmed up to Bernie Sanders. It's not so much that he's all that far to my left, nor that he's been pretty skimpy on details about all the programs he proposes. That's hardly uncommon in presidential campaigns. Rather, it's the fact that I think he's basically running a con, and one with the potential to cause distinct damage to the progressive cause.

I mean this as a provocation—but I also mean it. So if you're provoked, mission accomplished! Here's my argument.

Bernie's explanation for everything he wants to do—his theory of change, or theory of governing, take your pick—is that we need a revolution in this country. The rich own everything. Income inequality is skyrocketing. The middle class is stagnating. The finance industry is out of control. Washington DC is paralyzed.

But as Bill Scher points out, the revolution that Bernie called for didn't show up. In fact, it's worse than that: we were never going to get a revolution, and Bernie knew it all along. Think about it: has there ever been an economic revolution in the United States? Stretching things a bit, I can think of two:

The destruction of the Southern slave economy following the Civil War.

The New Deal.

The first of these was 50+ years in the making and, in the end, required a bloody, four-year war to bring to a conclusion. The second happened only after an utter collapse of the economy, with banks closing, businesses failing, wages plummeting, and unemployment at 25 percent. That's what it takes to bring about a revolution, or even something close to it.

We're light years away from that right now. Unemployment? Yes, two or three percent of the working-age population has dropped out of the labor force, but the headline unemployment rate is 5 percent. Wages? They've been stagnant since the turn of the century, but the average family still makes close to $70,000, more than nearly any other country in the world. Health care? Our system is a mess, but 90 percent of the country has insurance coverage. Dissatisfaction with the system? According to Gallup, even among those with incomes under $30,000, only 27 percent are dissatisfied with their personal lives.

Like it or not, you don't build a revolution on top of an economy like this. Period. If you want to get anything done, you're going to have to do it the old-fashioned way: through the slow boring of hard wood.

Why do I care about this? Because if you want to make a difference in this country, you need to be prepared for a very long, very frustrating slog. You have to buy off interest groups, compromise your ideals, and settle for half loaves—all the things that Bernie disdains as part of the corrupt mainstream establishment. In place of this he promises his followers we can get everything we want via a revolution that's never going to happen. And when that revolution inevitably fails, where do all his impressionable young followers go? Do they join up with the corrupt establishment and commit themselves to the slow boring of hard wood? Or do they give up?

I don't know, but my fear is that some of them will do the latter. And that's a damn shame. They've been conned by a guy who should know better, the same way dieters get conned by late-night miracle diets. When it doesn't work, they throw in the towel.

Most likely Bernie will have no lasting effect, and his followers will scatter in the usual way, with some doubling down on practical politics and others leaving for different callings. But there's a decent chance that Bernie's failure will result in a net increase of cynicism about politics, and that's the last thing we need. I hate the idea that we might lose even a few talented future leaders because they fell for Bernie's spiel and then got discouraged when it didn't pan out.

I'll grant that my pitch—and Hillary's and Barack Obama's—isn't very inspiring. Work your fingers to the bone for 30 years and you might get one or two significant pieces of legislation passed. Obviously you need inspiration too. But if you don't want your followers to give up in disgust, your inspiration needs to be in the service of goals that are at least attainable. By offering a chimera instead, Bernie has done the progressive movement no favors.

[The Romulan Republic]

I find it offensive that people keep acting like the primary is over.

Yes, Clinton is much more likely to win. But it is factually false to say that the race is over when more than one candidate is in, no one has reached the point where its mathematically impossible for someone else to win, and a whole bunch of states have yet to vote.

As to the article's argument which you bolded, insultingly portraying Sanders as a con man, what it seems to say is basically "Corruption is an inherent part of politics, reform is impossible, accept it, Sanders is bad/deceiving people for not being corrupt enough". That kind of attitude goes a long way to explaining why people don't like Hillary Clinton, incidentally.

This kind of argument is not likely to win over Sanders supporters. But it may push more of them into the Bernie or Bust camp.

[maraxus2]

I find it offensive that people keep acting like the primary is over.

Yes, Clinton is much more likely to win. But it is factually false to say that the race is over when more than one candidate is in, no one has reached the point where its mathematically impossible for someone else to win, and a whole bunch of states have yet to vote.

As to the article's argument which you bolded, insultingly portraying Sanders as a con man, what it seems to say is basically "Corruption is an inherent part of politics, reform is impossible, accept it, Sanders is bad/deceiving people for not being corrupt enough". That kind of attitude goes a long way to explaining why people don't like Hillary Clinton, incidentally.

This kind of argument is not likely to win over Sanders supporters. But it may push more of them into the Bernie or Bust camp.

The primary is over. Whether you like it or not is wholly irrelevant. Clinton has a near-insurmountable lead against Bernie. He is cutting staff across the country, staff that would be vital if his campaign actually thought they had a shot at the general election. He may keep raising huge gobs of campaign cash, but Hillary is going to be able to at least match it everywhere important. All the lower-level party figures that Bernie would need to be his side are much less likely to join an obviously losing campaign. Whatever headwind he fought against during the early days are now much stronger, and Clinton is a near-certainty to be the nominee. At this point, Bernie is relying on some outside force to rescue his campaign. An indictment, for instance, or Clinton getting hit by a meteor. Hoping that God will strike down your opponent is not a campaign strategy, but prayer. An extremely odd strategy for an irreligious politician to be sure.

And that's not what the bolded section says at all. Politics is a tough business; it took the conservative movement near fifty years to reach their apotheosis of power they enjoy today. They didn't get there off the back of Goldwater's campaign, Bernie's nearest right-wing equivalent. They got there by having a few extremely dedicated organizers pushing and fighting and clawing their way to the top of the heap. This is not easy work, as I can well attest. The point was that Bernie was promising a political revolution, which was both not likely to materialize and was much more likely to rebound to his opponent's advantage. Bernie's been around long enough to know this. He tapped into something very real, but his entire campaign has been essentially one long con, both policywise and politically. There are endless examples of this, should you wish to discuss.

You seem to be unable to wrap your head around the fact that the fat lady doesn't necessarily need to sing for the show to be over. Bernie ran a great race, and was much stronger than anyone could have imagined. But he wasn't strong enough, and it's increasingly obvious that his campaign promises were even more worthless than most.

[The Romulan Republic]

I find it offensive that people keep acting like the primary is over.

Yes, Clinton is much more likely to win. But it is factually false to say that the race is over when more than one candidate is in, no one has reached the point where its mathematically impossible for someone else to win, and a whole bunch of states have yet to vote.

As to the article's argument which you bolded, insultingly portraying Sanders as a con man, what it seems to say is basically "Corruption is an inherent part of politics, reform is impossible, accept it, Sanders is bad/deceiving people for not being corrupt enough". That kind of attitude goes a long way to explaining why people don't like Hillary Clinton, incidentally.

This kind of argument is not likely to win over Sanders supporters. But it may push more of them into the Bernie or Bust camp.

The primary is over.

Factually false.

We can say that we know what the likely outcome is, but that is not the same as pretending that their is no primary. Bernie is in the race, and their are a bunch of states left to vote. Its over when its over.

If you want to talk about likely outcomes, Clinton is and was always the likely winner. Bernie used to be a lot more obscure, and a lot lower in the polls, than he is now. You could have been forgiven for doubting that he would win anywhere when this began.

So if "Clinton will almost certainly win" means their is no primary, their was arguably never a primary to begin with, except for perhaps a brief window lasting from shortly before Iowa until around Super Tuesday.

But that brings us back to the Democratic nomination being a coronation, not a race. I trust you can understand why some people find that idea offensive?

Whether you like it or not is wholly irrelevant.

Indeed.

Clinton has a near-insurmountable lead against Bernie. He is cutting staff across the country, staff that would be vital if his campaign actually thought they had a shot at the general election.

Yes, I've seen this argument that Bernie reducing his staff means he knows he's beaten and is backing out.

But at the same time, if he was the nominee, do you really think he couldn't build that staff back up again fast? Right now he's focussing his money on the remaining primary contests.

I don't expect it to work, but I would be hesitant to read too much into the decision.

He may keep raising huge gobs of campaign cash, but Hillary is going to be able to at least match it everywhere important. All the lower-level party figures that Bernie would need to be his side are much less likely to join an obviously losing campaign. Whatever headwind he fought against during the early days are now much stronger, and Clinton is a near-certainty to be the nominee. At this point, Bernie is relying on some outside force to rescue his campaign. An indictment, for instance, or Clinton getting hit by a meteor. Hoping that God will strike down your opponent is not a campaign strategy, but prayer. An extremely odd strategy for an irreligious politician to be sure.

Well, I think there are a few things going on here:

1. Its still possible that he could win, so he can make a case for fighting it out. If he doesn't win, this'll still help with point number two.

2. Bernie wants as many delegates and therefore as much influence as possible in shaping the party in the future.

3. He's made a big issue out of how every state should get a chance to have their say, and insisted that he's staying in until the convention, so he'd be a right hypocrite if he backed out now.

And that's not what the bolded section says at all. Politics is a tough business; it took the conservative movement near fifty years to reach their apotheosis of power they enjoy today. They didn't get there off the back of Goldwater's campaign, Bernie's nearest right-wing equivalent. They got there by having a few extremely dedicated organizers pushing and fighting and clawing their way to the top of the heap. This is not easy work, as I can well attest. The point was that Bernie was promising a political revolution, which was both not likely to materialize and was much more likely to rebound to his opponent's advantage. Bernie's been around long enough to know this. He tapped into something very real, but his entire campaign has been essentially one long con, both policywise and politically. There are endless examples of this, should you wish to discuss.

I'm not saying that political change doesn't take time.

What I am objecting to is the idea that Bernie needs to be "realistic" by doing the usual shmoozing for big money, compromising on what he believes in, etc., and writing off any chance of succeeding in bringing major change now as a "con".

It seems like basically saying we should concede defeat before we've begun (like Clinton on health care reform).

You seem to be unable to wrap your head around the fact that the fat lady doesn't necessarily need to sing for the show to be over. Bernie ran a great race, and was much stronger than anyone could have imagined. But he wasn't strong enough, and it's increasingly obvious that his campaign promises were even more worthless than most.

Again, he is still in the fucking race and there are a whole bunch more states left to vote.

If you want to say that you think Clinton will win, fine. I have no complaint. She is certainly the likely winner of the Democratic Primary (and God willing, if she's the nominee, the general election). But wording it as "the race is over" or something like that comes off as dismissive and insulting. And there's been more than enough dismissive and insulting from the Clinton side towards Sanders and his supporters.

Remember- in the general election, Clinton will need us. She doesn't really have to win my vote, because I would vote for George W. Bush's third term against Drumpf or Cruz, but she does need to reach out to others who aren't so sure.

[Thanas]

I am willing to bet you a hundred bucks right now that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee.

The race is over. There is no hope left for any other outcome.

[The Romulan Republic]

I am willing to bet you a hundred bucks right now that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee.

The race is over. There is no hope left for any other outcome.

I would not take that bet, because I fully acknowledge that Clinton is likely to win.

I have only ever argued that it is theoretically possible for Sanders to win, not that it is in any way a likely outcome. I'll continue to argue that because, you know, math. But I do not and will not claim that it is likely.

That said, there is still a strong argument for Sanders staying in the race while that possibility exists, because even if he loses, he gets the consolation prize of more delegates/political clout at the convention.

I fully expect the Clinton campaign, or at least some of their members, to keep trying to marginalize him and his supporters, and I want that to be as difficult as possible. Because frankly, they need Sanders and his supporters, and some of them need to be convinced of that.

Of course, weighed against that is the concern of further dragging out a bitter, nasty, and divisive primary.

[Crazedwraith]

That said, there is still a strong argument for Sanders staying in the race while that possibility exists, because even if he loses, he gets the consolation prize of more delegates/political clout at the convention.

Genuine question: Does that even matter? For elections a miss is as good as a mile. You're either elected or not. What advantage does it being close actually get you?

[maraxus2]

That said, there is still a strong argument for Sanders staying in the race while that possibility exists, because even if he loses, he gets the consolation prize of more delegates/political clout at the convention.

I fully expect the Clinton campaign, or at least some of their members, to keep trying to marginalize him and his supporters, and I want that to be as difficult as possible. Because frankly, they need Sanders and his supporters, and some of them need to be convinced of that.

Of course, weighed against that is the concern of further dragging out a bitter, nasty, and divisive primary.

Again, you have this completely backasswards as far as influence goes. Hillary will need Bernie people to support her in November, but there are already plenty of reasons that Bernie's supporters will move en masse over to her if Trump (as seems likely) is the nominee. Bernie needs far far more Hillary supporters to jump ship in order to make his campaign remotely viable. You forget that she, not he, has around 3.1 million more votes, and that she, and not he, has led virtually the entire campaign. Like it or not, she is the choice of a majority of Democratic primary voters.

If Bernie is not an asshole and stops going around calling all of the elected Dems corrupt neo-liberal corporatocrats (or whatever the phrase of the week happens to be), there is no particular reason why they can't have the usual brother-hugging that happens at the end of every primary. That is how he will get concessions. If he continues to be an asshole, or worse decides to go full Nader and sabotage Clinton's campaign, he will completely marginalize himself and his voters and accomplish exactly nothing. Just look at Nader. Even Bernie won't return his phone calls any longer.

[The Romulan Republic]

That said, there is still a strong argument for Sanders staying in the race while that possibility exists, because even if he loses, he gets the consolation prize of more delegates/political clout at the convention.

Genuine question: Does that even matter? For elections a miss is as good as a mile. You're either elected or not. What advantage does it being close actually get you?

The ability to pressure Clinton and her supporters into adopting elements of his agenda into the platform, for a start.

Suppose their is something Sanders wants added to the platform. Some Clinton supporters want it too, but most don't. If he has enough delegates, he might be able to push it effectively.

Also, as I said, reinforcing/demostrating how much support he has so that Clinton feels more pressure to reach out to his people and make some concessions to ensure their votes in the general election.

And long term, the more votes he gets, the stronger his movement will appear and the harder it will be to dismiss as a fringe or a flash in the pan. Which increases the chances for a progressive in future elections. Which is ultimately about playing the long game, because as we were discussing above, politics often takes time. And perceptions matter in politics.

That's my take on it, anyway.

[The Romulan Republic]

That said, there is still a strong argument for Sanders staying in the race while that possibility exists, because even if he loses, he gets the consolation prize of more delegates/political clout at the convention.

I fully expect the Clinton campaign, or at least some of their members, to keep trying to marginalize him and his supporters, and I want that to be as difficult as possible. Because frankly, they need Sanders and his supporters, and some of them need to be convinced of that.

Of course, weighed against that is the concern of further dragging out a bitter, nasty, and divisive primary.

Again, you have this completely backasswards as far as influence goes. Hillary will need Bernie people to support her in November, but there are already plenty of reasons that Bernie's supporters will move en masse over to her if Trump (as seems likely) is the nominee.

I would like to think all Bernie supporters would rally around her against Drumpf, but I would not assume that, and it would be dangerous for the Clinton campaign to do so.

Bernie or Bust is a disturbingly common phrase these days.

This attitude from the Clinton side, of taking Sanders supporters for granted, is not a good idea. To me, frankly, it comes off as at best naive, at worst endangering the general election, with all that that entails, for the sake of your pride.

Bernie needs far far more Hillary supporters to jump ship in order to make his campaign remotely viable. You forget that she, not he, has around 3.1 million more votes, and that she, and not he, has led virtually the entire campaign. Like it or not, she is the choice of a majority of Democratic primary voters.

I forget nothing.

Clinton is currently ahead in votes. She is the preference of the majority who have voted thus far, and will likely be the choice of the majority of voters when all is said and done. Though we must remember the large number of people who couldn't vote because of closed primaries, voter suppression/fraud (see New York and Arizona), and the fact that some of those who voted for Clinton (or Sanders for that matter) might not vote the same way if they could vote again now (see Bernie's recently rising national poll numbers).

Still, a win is a win, and she will likely emerge the winner. Fair enough.

But you are conflating two issues here.

Yes, Bernie has further to go to win the primary. However, that has nothing to do with weather Clinton needs the support of his supporters in the general election. The nominee, whoever it may be, in any election, will need the support of their primary rivals in the general election.

If Bernie is not an asshole and stops going around calling all of the elected Dems corrupt neo-liberal corporatocrats (or whatever the phrase of the week happens to be),

Source for him saying that is true of all elected Democrats? Especially since he himself is now an elected Democrat.

there is no particular reason why they can't have the usual brother-hugging that happens at the end of every primary. That is how he will get concessions. If he continues to be an asshole, or worse decides to go full Nader and sabotage Clinton's campaign, he will completely marginalize himself and his voters and accomplish exactly nothing. Just look at Nader. Even Bernie won't return his phone calls any longer.

Bernie's being an asshole? And Clinton isn't when she goes on stage in a debate and tries to link him to Right wing, racist vigilantes (the Minutemen), uses the dead of Sandy Hook against him, and tries to argue that he supported brutal oppression by Castro, among other things?

Anyway, their is very little chance of Bernie sabotaging Clinton's campaign. He and his campaign have said he will not run third party/independent, that he will remain a Democrat, and that he will endorse Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee.

It would, therefore, behoove her to be a gracious winner and reach out to his supporters as well, and call out those on her side who continue to attack Bernie and his supporters.

All the more so if the message she wants to convey is "The Primary is over, I've already won". It costs her nothing but perhaps her pride, and maybe a few corporate donors she claims don't influence her, to be a gracious winner.

I do question your apparent notion that simply conceding yourself is the best way to get concessions. Though that thinking would explain a great deal about the recent tendency of the Democratic Party to try to compromise with the Republicans too much.

[Adam Reynolds]

I would like to think all Bernie supporters would rally around her against Drumpf, but I would not assume that, and it would be dangerous for the Clinton campaign to do so.

Bernie or Bust is a disturbingly common phrase these days.

A few Bernie supporters will undoubtedly support Trump, as they don't want a Washington insider regardless of the cost. Not exactly a rational choice, but that does rather nicely fit most people regardless.

[The Romulan Republic]

I actually can honestly say I hate the Bernie or Trump people more than the straight-up white supremacist supporters he has, because they're hypocrites who claim to be acting in Bernie's name while betraying everything he and others of his supporters, like myself, believe in.

[Raw Shark]

Not that I don't actually support Stein's policies, which I do, but I also like the Bernie or Stein position because it negates the Anti-Hils-Are-Necessarily-Against-All-Women narrative, which Hils deserves at this point for attempting to capitalize on that issue so much. Fuck that shit. I think women are the best thing ever, and I will vote for one that agrees with what I believe with a huge smile.

[Flagg]

I am willing to bet you a hundred bucks right now that Hillary Clinton will be the nominee.

The race is over. There is no hope left for any other outcome.

Those indictments are coming down any day now, Thanas!!!

[Flagg]

TRR is in the coming to terms with a hint of denial temper tantrum phase of your loser candidate losing. I remember, 2004 was a bitch.

[Purple]

Well he can always vote Trump out of revolt against the democrats. And doing that might just get Sanders into power eventually. I mean, if anything is going to make americans want a revolution than it's 4 years of President Trump.

[Lord Revan]

Well he can always vote Trump out of revolt against the democrats. And doing that might just get Sanders into power eventually. I mean, if anything is going to make americans want a revolution than it's 4 years of President Trump.

that's assuming there's an US to have a president for after the Trump, he seems like the guy who would accidently start world war 3 because he didn't realize that polical interactions don't work the same way as business ones.

[The Vortex Empire]

Not that I don't actually support Stein's policies, which I do, but I also like the Bernie or Stein position because it negates the Anti-Hils-Are-Necessarily-Against-All-Women narrative, which Hils deserves at this point for attempting to capitalize on that issue so much. Fuck that shit. I think women are the best thing ever, and I will vote for one that agrees with what I believe with a huge smile.

Aye, with Bernie defeated, I'm in the Stein camp. Between voting for the Iraq War, voting for the Patriot Act, backing the coup of the democratically elected Honduran government that turned Honduras into the murder capital of the world, and backing the welfare reform in the 90s that plunged millions of Americans into poverty, Hillary will never have my vote.