Why so many "I'll never vote for Hillary" posts?

[Drunken Irishman]

79. Most DU is out of the mainstream of the Democratic Party...

They like to suggest they're the base, but polls pretty much indicate they're not. Most Democrats support and approve of Hillary (and her husband), as well as President Obama. There is a small number, maybe 20% or less, who are vocally against her, and the President. But they're not a majority and it's why, when the chips are down, they can't nominate a candidate who appeals to them. Of course, they'll blame corporations - but forget that, at the end of the day, it's the actual voters who decide the primary process and unless they're openly stating Democrats are too stupid to realize what they're getting, their point is invalid. The fact is, the two most successful Democratic politicians of the last 40 years are also the two most hated on here at DU - Barack Obama and Bill Clinton.

DU continuously tells us these types of Democrats can't win ... and yet, who has won the presidency for the Democrats? It wasn't George McGovern, a hero to the left - or Walter Mondale and Mike Dukakis. Nope. It was Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Hillary is viable. She might not be my number one choice (I'd support Biden, then O'Malley and then Hillary - in that order), but I'll happily vote for her in 2016 because I'm not myopic enough to believe how damaging the Republicans will be toward major issues - like the Supreme Court, environment, war, SS, Medicare, Obamacare, the minimum wage, gay and women's rights.

I, like most Democrats, know that progress isn't made through just one president - it's a collection of like-minded leaders who build on each other's legacy. FDR built on the legacy established by his cousin, who, oddly, was a Republican. Truman built on FDR's legacy, as did Kennedy & Johnson. Had Nixon won in '60 instead of Kennedy, there is no Medicare or Medicaid or food stamps or Johnson's Great Society. Likewise, had Gore, who many on the left accused of being just like Bush, won in 2000 - there would have been no massive tax cuts, no war with Iraq, no trying to privatize social security and certainly a country better off today than what we got ... even if Gore, in 2000, was unacceptable to many on the left.

Just starting over every four years is not the answer. Refusing to vote for a Democrat in the general A) negates any claim you're a Democrat and B) just hands the presidency over to the Republicans. We did that in 2000, even though many here will refuse to accept that, and where'd it get us? Can anyone say with a straight face that Gore's presidency would've mirrored Bush's?

Of course not. Do Democrats, and liberals, really want to see Rand Paul taking the Oath of Office in January, 2017?

I doubt it. So, do something about it - and no, going third party doesn't fix the problem. Not when you know your vote isn't going to do a damn thing. It's like standing by a house fire and dousing it with a little water bottle. You might be able to claim you helped put out the fire ... but we know otherwise.