Thread: Have you heard of a write-in movement for Sen. Clinton?

Just curious, has anyone here heard of a movement across the nation, of people trying to encourage others to write-in Sen. Clinton on the next presidential vote?

Working on an article about this, her staff claims they have heard of no such thing. I wanted to know is it just in my area that this is spreading or in othersi in the country too?

Not heard of it, plus it would be extremely dumb of any democrat to do.

Splitting the vote will make McCain a certainty.

Those I've polled in my area simply don't care. When left with the typical 'lesser of two evils' voting that seems to have become a theme in our Presidential Elections, they feel McCain would be less harmful them Obama...and I polled people who claim to have typically voted Democrat in past elections!

I just find this interesting! My area along for this would be almost expected since she is our Senator, so I am merely attempting to verify what is really going on...a local movement or other areas as well.

I agree the 'lesser of two' evils has to go, I however don't see that much difference between Obama and Hillary to jump to the conclusion that McCain would do less damage.

I'm all for getting a third into the mix, not from the same party and same crap as someone who already is though.

I'm personally surprised she has decided not to go independent for the race actually. It would be nice to get the third party to get the require percentage in order to make this a 3 party system. I'm pretty sure Nader isn't going to get it done....yet again. He's kind of a joke by now isn't it? How many times has he done this now? I'm losing track!

I have heard of this here and there.
Basically it is a grass roots effort to vote for her.

Now if she came out tomorrow, or very shortly, and said she is officially in the race as an independent, that would take a lot of steam from Obama.

Looking at McCain and Obama more closely, I have to say that it does boil down to the lesser of two evils.
Which happens to be McCain.

Nader?
What a freaking joke!

Oh, just a thought....if Hilary jumped into the fray and got Ron Paul as her running mate?
Or vice versa?

McCain the lesser of 2 evils? Hmmm not sure I can agree with that.

I don't believe I can vote for either to be honest.

True, but not to vote is a vote and not always the correct vote.

Originally Posted by iowadawg

True, but not to vote is a vote and not always the correct vote.

I didn't say I wouldn't vote

people trying to encourage others to write-in Sen. Clinton on the next presidential vote

Those people, if any, would certainly be Republicans. They know it'd remove the chance either could win.

Nadar may never have been a factor, but when a candidate comes in where virtually all their votes siphon support from one party's base you get the effect Ross Perot exemplified (for those that were at the "playing with Tinkertoys" stage at the time... he cost the incumbent President the election).

If a third party is gonna WIN an election instead of just spoil it for one of the two groups thatve pretty much worn out everyone's patience as they've done a revolving door act to decide who to swipe taxes from to fund their pork barrel routines and stay in office... it'll probably have to come from the direction of Libertarian views. Such a group could draw from people currently voting on either of the currently poloarized but roughly evenly split (electorally speaking) sides.

That said, though many Americans (unknowingly in many cases) agree with the Libertarian principles of minimum government intervention... the party itself has always been a mismanaged mishmash that seldom fields credible candidates. We didn't actually start this country with the two parties we currently have, eventually there will be enough disgust for one or the other to collapse in the face of a third. Just part of the nature of the slow evolutionary process.

Question is how long and whether there will be anything left by the time they finally get there. I've been just involved enough to feel both sides have long since ceased to even appear credible. Rumor is we start life as liberals, work into becoming conservatives... then apparently evolve into cynics. Believe I've hit the third stage. They're ALL thieves.

IMO, your mileage may vary.

^ Why not tell us what you really think! LOL Nice post seriously.

But those I've interviewed (keep in mind I live in her state) are Democrats who truly believe they can cause enough commotion to get Hillary elected via write-in ballots!

Originally Posted by Kaos

But those I've interviewed (keep in mind I live in her state) are Democrats who truly believe they can cause enough commotion to get Hillary elected via write-in ballots!

Then they need to lay off the crack

As it is the election will be very close between 2, much less having Hillary siphon off votes from Obama.

I enjoy my crack thank you very much! :P

I have to agree with them. I am typically a democrat but will not vote Obama, I'm down to McCain or the write in...if allowed. My research has shown that 'write-in' candidates are applied differently depending on state rules. Some states, if I (for example) write-in Hillary, it would count as a vote for Hillary, other state it would still count as a vote for Obama...this to me is really criminal, but I didn't make the rules!

Some good points raised in this thread.

The entire election process should be changed, but like all government systems, very entrenched and the so called representatives we elect (or not voted for) do not want to upset the apple cart as it were.

The entire so-called democratic government we have needs to be completely revised.

Term limits would help a lot! Two terms and you are out! And not just the president as is the case now, but senators and representatives.

For campaigns of any office, from president down to whatever, it should be a set time of say 90 days prior to the election. Anyone or any party making any prediction of candidates would be fined not money but say automatically losing xx% of votes cast would slow the cheating.

The people of the USA, and our so-called elected officials in any office (federal, state or local) have all completely lost sight of the fact that the government is supposed to be of the people and for the people.
Not as it is today, for the elected officials, the parties involved and big business.
And not for the people.

Maybe thats the grassroot movement we all should start...vote out the incumbent LOL

[MENTAL]Vote Em Out![/MENTAL] [MENTAL]Let's Get a Fresh Start[/MENTAL]

As the incumbent is limited to the two terms he's served I'm pretty sure we dont have to vote him out.

Meantime realistically we're faced with one of two choices. Choose well. A vote for anyone besides the two nominees statistically has the chance of a snowball in hell. That isn't something I like, just reality.

Originally Posted by Kaos

I enjoy my crack thank you very much! :P

I have to agree with them. I am typically a democrat but will not vote Obama, I'm down to McCain or the write in...if allowed. My research has shown that 'write-in' candidates are applied differently depending on state rules. Some states, if I (for example) write-in Hillary, it would count as a vote for Hillary, other state it would still count as a vote for Obama...this to me is really criminal, but I didn't make the rules!

Interesting that you guys do that.
If you write in any name on a ballot up here, the ballot is spoiled. Period. No exceptions.
You might as well write in "Mickey Mouse" because you've just wasted your time.

Thats interesting Zap. I didn't know though. Atleast you guy have more then a two party system though, correct??

Originally Posted by Kaos

Thats interesting Zap. I didn't know though. Atleast you guy have more then a two party system though, correct??

Yes we do and it makes for interesting politics, to say the least.
We have 3 main parties and several smaller ones who do receive votes and get members elected.
We currently have a minority government. For those who don't know, that's when one party receives more votes than any other single party, but not more than the other parties combined. So, the other two parties can gang up on the governing party and force them to make concessions on issues.
It has the effect of saying to one party "We want you to govern, but we're not giving you a blank cheque.".
I don't know if you guys could actually implement that down there because of your regimented electoral process. Up here, if the other two parties do actually dig their heels in on an important issue and out vote the governing party, that brings down the government and they must call for an election, even if they have only been governing for a matter of months. We may actually see that in the next few months here because our Prime Minister is sick of having his hands tied and I guess he'd rather be out of office than in office but responsible to the other parties for their cooperation.

Unfortunately, though, they are still politicians so that means we have a choice of several assholes on election day instead of just two assholes.