Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, October 18, 2016

There's a lot of frustration among Bernie Sanders supporters regarding their presidential options for the general election. In a recent nationwide survey of 461 former Bernie delegates, fewer than half -- 37 percent to be specific -- said they plan to vote for Hillary Clinton come November 8.

Although Sanders is currently acting as a surrogate for Clinton, it appears this hasn't been enough to sway many of his ardent supporters. (Indeed, the leak of Clinton's speeches to Wall Street has pushed away many of these people.) About 17 percent of the Bernie delegates said they are undecided.

Beyond that, a large chunk of these voters, about 33 percent, plan to support the Green Party's presidential candidate, Dr. Jill Stein.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

the overall number of Bernie supporters who plan to vote for Donald Trump and Gary Johnson is "very close to zero."

Hunter says that since there is a lot of "political crossover" among the policies Sanders and Stein promote, the Green Party could win a lot of votes from Democrats and former Democrats (some Sanders supporters have converted to Green entirely since he lost the Democratic nomination).

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Vote Green for a change.

Vote for Jill Stein

#1 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2016-10-18 12:18 AM | Reply

I'll be voting McMullin, Punchy. But if I had a gun to my head I would gladly vote for Stein over Trump or Clinton.

#2 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 12:38 AM | Reply

Good. Vote for Jill Stein.

After the last O'Keefe video that shows how the DNC, and HRCs SuperPac orchestrated the Chicago riots that resulted in 100s of 1000s in property damage and 3 officers injured and was blamed on Bernie, HRC deserves no votes. That she would have an attack apparatus similar to the Brown Shirts ready at the go to and be violent solely for the purpose of damaging Bernie and intimidating voters is despicable...

#3 | Posted by aescal at 2016-10-18 01:22 AM | Reply

That she would have an attack apparatus similar to the Brown Shirts ready at the go

Did she offer to pay their legal bills?

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-18 01:24 AM | Reply

- O'Keefe video

Each Video Comes Completely Pre-tampered!

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-18 01:31 AM | Reply

#4

Foval actually does. Watch the video.

#6 | Posted by aescal at 2016-10-18 01:40 AM | Reply

Joe Exotic.
2016.
It's time.
Grrrrrrrrrr.

#7 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2016-10-18 05:36 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"After the last O'Keefe video"

Dan Rather had to resign for doing far far less lying than O'Keefe, yet you turds keep right on buying his --------.

I guess integrity only matters on the left.

#8 | Posted by 726 at 2016-10-18 07:02 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

Joe Exotic.
2016.
It's time.
Grrrrrrrrrr.
#7 DOC_SARVIS

John Oliver is high on Joe, but C'mon, he won't wear a suit for crying out loud. I'm having trouble getting around that.

#9 | Posted by Whizzo at 2016-10-18 07:54 AM | Reply

But he does sport a dandy mullet.

#10 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2016-10-18 08:39 AM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

#1 | POSTED BY PUNCHYPOSSUM
"Vote Green for a change.
Vote for Jill Stein"

A vote for Stein isn't a vote for change, it's a vote for the voter's ego.
Go ahead and vote for her, but don't fool yourself into thinking it's for "change".
Unless you can get tens of millions of others to go along with it.

#11 | Posted by TheTom at 2016-10-18 03:21 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

A vote for Stein isn't a vote for change, it's a vote for the voter's ego.
Go ahead and vote for her, but don't fool yourself into thinking it's for "change".
Unless you can get tens of millions of others to go along with it.

#11 | Posted by TheTom at 2016-10-18 03:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Utter drivel. Eveyrone is responsible for their own vote, not for "tens of millions" of votes. And a Green Party presidency certainly would be a change.

If you have to take shots at others in order to justify your own vote, that's your problem.

#12 | Posted by Sully at 2016-10-18 03:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#12 | POSTED BY SULLY
"Eveyrone is responsible for their own vote"

No kidding.

"not for "tens of millions" of votes."

No change without it, though. And no point in calling it a "vote for change", except to hug one's ego.
Voting for a candidate that gets 2% of the popular vote, and 0% of the electoral vote, isn't a vote for change.

"If you have to take shots at others in order to justify your own vote, that's your problem."

I'm not taking shots, and my vote is justified regardless.
If you can't see my point, that's your problem.

#13 | Posted by TheTom at 2016-10-18 04:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Voting for a candidate that gets 2% of the popular vote, and 0% of the electoral vote, isn't a vote for change.

2%? 0%?

So why worry?

After a rigged primary and Trump's graveyard of scandals being exposed Hillary still can't win the general election?

Don't fret.

The rigged general election will ensure her victory.

#14 | Posted by ClownShack at 2016-10-18 05:38 PM | Reply

Donald Trump appreciates their support.

#15 | Posted by soheifox at 2016-10-18 10:18 PM | Reply

So the GP may actually hit .5% this November? Outstanding!

I'll be voting McMullin, Punchy.

#2 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Presidential candidates on the ballot in Michigan
Donald Drumpf/Mike Pence (Republican)
Hillary Clinton/Tim Kaine (Democratic)
Gary Johnson/Bill Weld (Libertarian)
Darrell Lane Castle/Scott Bradley (U.S. Taxpayers)
Jill Stein/Ajamu Baraka (Green)
UncheckedBox.jpg

I guess JeffJ's moving to Utah.

#16 | Posted by northguy3 at 2016-10-18 10:42 PM | Reply

Oliver,

You are aware that you can write-in a vote, right?

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-18 10:59 PM | Reply

#15 | Posted by soheifox at 2016-10-18

Wall-Street Bankers and the military industry free traders and big oil thanks you for voting for hillary.

Sucker

#18 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2016-10-18 11:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

hillary already said she is in favor of more wars.

#19 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2016-10-19 12:43 AM | Reply

"On Syria, Clinton says it's hard to figure out whom to arm -- completely oblivious to any options other than arming somebody. It's hard, she says, to predict at all what will happen. So, her advice, which she blurts out to a room of bankers, is to wage war in Syria very "covertly."

#20 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2016-10-19 12:48 AM | Reply

Good move on the part of Bernie supporters.

#21 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 11:44 AM | Reply

"After the last O'Keefe vide"

Stopped reading right there.

#22 | Posted by danni at 2016-10-19 11:54 AM | Reply

#14 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Clown, you're misunderstanding my position. There's no worrying or fretting going on here.
I'm saying, let's can it with the "vote for change" line.
It's not a vote for change, it's a vote to make the voter feel better.

#23 | Posted by TheTom at 2016-10-19 02:51 PM | Reply

Did some stooge wonder why an anchor of one of the big 3 nightly newscasts and some partisan videographer weren't held to the same journalistic standards?

Must be a Hillary voter.

#24 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2016-10-19 02:58 PM | Reply

It's not a vote for change, it's a vote to make the voter feel better.

It's a vote for a candidate they feel comfortable supporting.

Rather than voting for the lesser evil and hoping our future isn't a complete downward spiral.

#25 | Posted by ClownShack at 2016-10-19 03:01 PM | Reply

If you can't see my point, that's your problem.

#13 | Posted by TheTom at 2016-10-18 04:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Your problem is that you don't have a point but believe that you do.

#26 | Posted by Sully at 2016-10-19 03:02 PM | Reply

Donald Trump appreciates their support.

#15 | Posted by soheifox at 2016-10-18 10:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Stupidity appreciates yours.

#27 | Posted by Sully at 2016-10-19 03:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's a vote for a candidate they feel comfortable supporting.

I'm voting to maintain and preserve the hegemony. I vote against re-negotiating that.

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-19 03:06 PM | Reply

I could see myself voting to renegotiate that but not with Trump as the one doing the negotiation. Sanders? Sure.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-19 03:07 PM | Reply

I can't stand either of these 2 candidates. How great would it be if more scandalous stuff came out before the election and enough people in a handful of states were so disgusted with their choices that a 3rd party candidate to a plurality of the votes so that neither Trump or Clinton get to 270? I know it won't happen, but I can still look for a glimmer of hope.

#30 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 03:07 PM | Reply

How great would it be if more scandalous stuff came out before the election and enough people in a handful of states were so disgusted with their choices that a 3rd party candidate to a plurality of the votes so that neither Trump or Clinton get to 270?

That would be terrible. Could even result in some kind of civil war.

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-19 03:10 PM | Reply

#25 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK
"Rather than voting for the lesser evil and hoping our future isn't a complete downward spiral."

One candidate is far more likely to precipitate that downward spiral.
If someone genuinely doesn't care whether it's Clinton or Trump in the White House, fine.
I don't understand such a position, but fine.
But a vote, especially in this election, isn't simply about "supporting" a candidate, but about stopping a candidate.
Given that only one of two can win, I feel there's only reasonable choice. I don't have to be a fan to vote for Clinton.

#32 | Posted by TheTom at 2016-10-19 03:48 PM | Reply

#26 | POSTED BY SULLY
"Your problem is that you don't have a point but believe that you do."

Ah, the I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I defense. Well done.

#33 | Posted by TheTom at 2016-10-19 03:49 PM | Reply

Hillary Clinton is a much bigger danger to our freedoms and liberties than Donald Trump.

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 03:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Hillary Clinton is a much bigger danger to our freedoms and liberties than Donald Trump.

You're nuts. Clinton isn't promising to go on a witch hunt after his rival. What Trump is doing is a direct threat to our political process. That process that has to be functioning for your freedoms and liberties to be protected.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2016-10-19 03:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Very nuts. Unless of course one figures that 30K US troops in Syria and nuking the rest of the ME is good strategery for our freedoms and liberties.

#36 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-19 03:56 PM | Reply

Ah, the I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I defense. Well done.

#33 | Posted by TheTom at 2016-10-19 03:49 PM | Reply

Not at all. I previously explained the flaw in your thinking. All you did was repeat your silly assertion.

People are not voting for Stein to appease their own egos just because THETOM declares it to be so. (talk about egotistical, BTW)

You have no point because there is no logic to your claim. You are not denying that Stein represents a change. And you seem to be hung on numbers as if that matters. It doesn't and I've already told you why.

You have no point because what you are claiming is nonsensical and arrogant.

#37 | Posted by Sully at 2016-10-19 04:17 PM | Reply

#37 | POSTED BY SULLY
"I previously explained the flaw in your thinking."

No, Sully, you explained the flaw in someone's thinking. Just not mine.

"Eveyrone is responsible for their own vote". I said nothing to the contrary, and nothing about responsibility at all.

"And a Green Party presidency certainly would be a change." Hence the "tens of millions" mentioned, as that's what would be required.

"If you have to take shots at others..." Which wasn't what I was doing.

"...in order to justify your own vote..." Which wasn't what I was doing.

"People are not voting for Stein to appease their own egos just because THETOM declares it to be so." Which isn't what I said.
Stein voters aren't voting for her to be president, as that's NOT going to happen. So, why are they voting for her?
Because they don't want to vote for either major party candidate, but they still want to vote. But without tens of millions of others doing likewise, it's hardly a vote for change.

"You have no point because there is no logic to your claim." Because Sully declares it to be so?

"You are not denying that Stein represents a change." I am denying that merely voting for her represents a change.

"And you seem to be hung on numbers as if that matters." Just the numbers that DO matter, like electoral votes. Crazy, I know.

Perhaps if you hadn't gone for the adolescent approach, assigning motive and attacking a position that wasn't mine to being with, you'd have fared better.

#38 | Posted by TheTom at 2016-10-19 04:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Obama repeatedly flouted the Constitution. Congressional Dems cheered him on and the MSM covered for him the whole way. The process didn't matter only that a policy victory was achieved - the ends justified the means. That would continue under Clinton.

Trump has alienated plenty of Republicans to the point that if he acted in an unconstitutional manner some members of the GOP would likely join Democrats in taking measures to stop him. He'd also get WAY more media scrutiny than Hillary would ever receive. In short, Trump would have real checks against over-reach. Hillary, not so much. And that is why she's a greater threat to our freedoms and liberties than Trump.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 04:57 PM | Reply

ElTom,

This is what I think drew the strong reaction:

A vote for Stein isn't a vote for change, it's a vote for the voter's ego.

That's a pretty inflammatory thing to say IMO and completely out of character for you.

#40 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 04:58 PM | Reply

-He'd also get WAY more media scrutiny than Hillary would ever receive

That's pretty funny. But even were it true, which it isn't, it's hardly a basis for preferring someone who wants 30K troops in Syria as a lesser threat to our freedoms and liberties.

- A vote for Stein isn't a vote for change, it's a vote for the voter's ego.

It's a fact. Bernie knows it... and now even Michael Moore is supporting Hillary.

Voting is a civic responsibility to vote in such a way that puts the best of the only two electable candidates this year in office. A protest vote is ideological ------------.

#41 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-19 05:03 PM | Reply

That's pretty funny. But even were it true, which it isn't,

Have you been paying attention for the past 8 years? NYT, WaPo, the Big 3, LA Times, etc, etc were all Pravda-LIte for the Obama administration.

Many outlets have publicly admitted that they are deliberately slanting their coverage to benefit Hillary and to harm Trump.

#42 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 05:05 PM | Reply

(I just thought I'd raise the excellent The Tom in "inflammatory things to say", lol.)

#43 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-19 05:06 PM | Reply

Voting is a civic responsibility to vote for the candidate who best represents the interests of the voter and who said voter feels is the best choice for the country.

FTFY

#44 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 05:06 PM | Reply

#42

It's true that reality has a liberal bias. It could have something to do with intellect and education.

Rwing websites tend to support that analysis, lol.

#45 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-19 05:08 PM | Reply

=who said voter feels is the best choice for the country.

What, exactly, difference does that feel good feeling make when the choice won't win the election?

#46 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-19 05:09 PM | Reply

It's true that reality has a liberal bias.

That was clever the first 747,231 times it was used. It's stale now. And lame.

#47 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 05:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

If enough people vote for someone other than the 2 major party candidates.....

#48 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 05:10 PM | Reply

I don't begrudge anyone who votes for Hillary or Trump. I just call out the arrogance when they look down their noses at those who choose to vote 3rd Party.

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2016-10-19 05:12 PM | Reply

-It's stale now. And lame.

Don't backtalk me, young man! I have Frank Cotton on speed dial!

#50 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-19 05:12 PM | Reply

-If enough people vote for someone other than the 2 major party candidates.....

Pretending that is going to happen this year doesn't help your case. And I'm not looking down, I'm looking for a rational, math-friendly explanation for voting in such a way that might help Trump.... other than the silly claim that he's better for the country than her.

#51 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-19 05:15 PM | Reply

#40 | POSTED BY JEFFJ
"That's a pretty inflammatory thing to say IMO and completely out of character for you."

Jeff, I don't consider it inflammatory, although I can understand the reaction. Somewhat, that is.
I think the reaction you're referring to requires making assumptions that aren't necessary.
I think people who vote for Stein (or Johnson, or Boaty McBoatface) are doing it because it makes them feel better. Plain and simple.
And that's fine, but let's call it what it is.
They want to participate in the election, which is good, but they want to vote for a candidate that they already know isn't going to win.
Therefore, what is the purpose, if not for the voter's own self-satisfaction?
And referring to it as "a vote for change"? Is that not simply window dressing?

As far as out of character goes, I'd like to think that my character involves cutting thru B.S., and framing an argument with reason and honesty. And it is my honest, reasoned opinion that people who are voting for a candidate that cannot win are being less than reasonable. I can give a lot of leeway if it's in a solidly red or blue state, and I don't think it's inherently wrong, but neither am I willing to accept the "vote for change" theme.

#52 | Posted by TheTom at 2016-10-19 05:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I will say this about the current voting cycle, - it sure has revealed the true stripes of many posters here on the DR. And that will not be forgotten.

#53 | Posted by moder8 at 2016-10-19 06:26 PM | Reply

Hysterical threats in lieu of argument. How am I not surprised.

#54 | Posted by Corky at 2016-10-19 06:45 PM | Reply

#53 | POSTED BY MODER8
"the current voting cycle...sure has revealed the true stripes of many posters here on the DR."

No, it reveals certain contextual stripes, not "true" stripes.
People behave differently at the diplomacy table than they do in the trenches.

#55 | Posted by TheTom at 2016-10-19 10:00 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2016 World Readable

-->
Drudge Retort