You are hereForums / Why I'm a Republican for Obama / Would you vote for Hillary if Obama loses the nomination?

Would you vote for Hillary if Obama loses the nomination?


By favian - Posted on 08 May 2008

Many republicans are fed up with the incumbant (He has the worst approval ratings for a president in the 80 year history of Gallup polls) and are going to be voting Democrat for the first time in many years because they are unsatisfied with the current course of the country.

So if Obama loses the nomination to Clinton, would you support Clinton, or would you switch support to Mccain despite being fed up with the party?

Please state your answer as a yes or no, followed by any personal commentary you'd like to add.

This question seems to keep resurfacing. Interesting.  Anyway, no I will never vote for Clinton, under any conditions.  My response is not a simple reaction to her behavior during this campaign.  My mind was made up years ago, when people began talking about her running. She is a pathological liar and seems to lack morals.

Also, I will not vote for McCain.  If Obama were to lose the nom somehow, I would simply write him in or not vote at all. 

 

Good news for Clinton Supporters: Post-Bosnia, Hillary now has up to a .07% chance of winning the dem nomination if she keeps her mouth shut until December.

There's no way I could continue to support Barack if he picked Hillary.  While our party has done a great deal to damage our political climate, this woman has made a living of trying to beat down Republicans. 

There are probably 100 better people for Barack to pick than this selfish, divisive excuse for a political leader.

thanks for answering above, but this question was not about if he picked her as a running mate, rather, if you would support clinton, if Obama lost the presidential nomination to her. (however i think you inadverdently answered my question)

After Armageddon, the second coming of Christ and hell freezing over, then and only then would I CONSIDER casting a vote for Hillary or any relation thereof. She's divisive, a liar, has no sense of decency, is selfish, condescending, a carpetbagger, and generally has a sense of entitlement and is always the "victim."

 Have I left anything out?

^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
As far as I know, I have no reason to believe Hillary Clinton is a monster; there's no basis for that, I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

"The merest thought hasn't even speculated about the possibility of crossing my mind."

I knew that.

Thanks for the answer, but no diatribes please! :)

I'm not necessarily trying to start a debate, rather, trying to guage how many Obama republicans would still vote democrat this november even if Obama doesn't get the nom.

favian, we have been discussing this matter for fifteen months, and the answer is very few. That's not very specific, though. Do you want me to pull the current poll numbers for you? I can check how many will cross over for one but not the other.

ps. I'm know that a lot of Obamicans won't vote for Hillary, but that's not to say they'll vote for McCain. Many will just stay home.

Favian, problem is, if you try and get overcontrolling about peoples' responses (telling them they're engaging in "diatribes"), etc., you risk turning people off to answering your questions at this site.    Why not be more gracious in asking for a more specific response?  After all, you're getting help from us, not the other way around.

 

Good news for Clinton Supporters: Post-Bosnia, Hillary now has up to a .007% chance of winning the dem nomination if she keeps her mouth shut until December.

Well, based on his question I'm guessing he had no idea he would inspire such passionate responses with his query.

You're right, i will rephrase my question.

Personally, I think I did answer his question (and was rather specific) and I gave the personal reasons he asked me to provide...so I wasn't real sure where the diatribe came in. I gave him the conditions under which I would vote for her (embellished though they were) and my reasons for not voting for her absent those three cataclysmic events. :)

^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
As far as I know, I have no reason to believe Hillary Clinton is a monster; there's no basis for that, I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

Personally, I liked your answer, only you didn't go far enough. ;-)  But not to worry, I added to it.

Favian, we are a pretty passionate group, that is used to discussing everthing pretty thoroughly.  Bear with us, please, as this is who we are.

What piques your interest in the answers to this question? 

What about you?  What will you do?

NO, I would never consider voting for Hillary.  To do so goes against everything I believe in.  Not in her policies (whatever they are today, as the do tend to change), but in her persona, her character, or lack thereof.  I agree with everything Golf said about HRC, and will add cold, caluculating, manipulative and power-mad.

I honestly don't know what I would do should should Hillary manage to steal the nomination.  I used to say I would vote for McCain.  Now I don't know.  I may just write Obama in.  At times, I anquish over this scenario, but have decided not to do that to myself when it is likely unnecessary.

So, what do you say, favian? Do you want the official poll numbers? Or were you just wanting to know how this group felt?

yes, i was curious, i have never really seen the media cover these kinds of numbers. I'm surprised no one is willing to admit that they would vote for Clinton, even in the very least to steer the country in a different direction than the one in its current course. It seems generally, there is a personal dislike of Hillary Clinton, and people find her to be less affable than her husbund which means that personality counts perhaps more than policy?  I'm undecided myself, but i just wanted to examine the numbers. I'm looking for at least 40 responses.

You know, here's another cunundrum. I don't know if I'd vote for Obama if he put Hillary on the ticket. I think that she could be a good president, if I was able to discount all the other things in my previous post, but I forgot to mention that she comes with "him." And in my view, Bill is the sun and she is the moon and she absorbs and reflects the energy he gives off and if the celestial comparison is too good for them, here's another one, Bill is a set of car headlights, and Hillary is the roadside reflector. 

^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
As far as I know, I have no reason to believe Hillary Clinton is a monster; there's no basis for that, I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

You won't get 40 responses here in the short term. I'm not sure where you should go to get that kind of feedback.

You mentioned personality versus policy. Character is a significant consideration for many Republicans supporting Obama. 

 "You won't get 40 responses here in the short term. I'm not sure where you should go to get that kind of feedback."

Could go to politico.com and get a ton of replies there.   Not sure how straight-forward the answers would be though LOL.

 

Good news for Clinton Supporters: Post-Bosnia, Hillary now has up to a .007% chance of winning the dem nomination if she keeps her mouth shut until December.

favian, believe me, if anyone here were going to vote for Clinton, they would admit it.  We have strong differences of opinion at times, and respect that in each other.  I don't think it is a question of affabilty or personality.  We are smarter than that.  For me, it is a lack of trust, and Hillary's lack of a moral compass.  As affable as Bill was, I didn't like him either.  Pseudo empathy can only go so far, and it went nowhere with me.

Suzi that's my thinking as well.  And I view both of the Clintons as pathological liars and cheats.  Trust is the number one consideration when it comes to dealing with anyone, president or otherwise.

Something to consider (I think) when interviewing presidents:  Observe them as you would anyone you might hire.  If they lie on their resumes (Snipergate, etc.), or they lie to your face (Snipergate, etc.) while trying to earn your vote, they flunk the interview.  Also, part of the interview includes how the candidate treats the other candidates and how well s/he has managed his/her campaign.   If there are signs of disorganization, wreckless spending, high overturn of hired help and personal drama involved, it offers some insight into the risk you're taking on by hiring this person as president.

One more note about trust.  If you are an untrustworthy candidate and/or have serious personality flaws, all bets are off since there's no reason for me to have faith that you truly are out for the best interest of my country, and me.

 

Good news for Clinton Supporters: Post-Bosnia, Hillary now has up to a .007% chance of winning the dem nomination if she keeps her mouth shut until December.

Favian,

 I am one of the few Dems on this site, somewhat discarded by my own party, but have found a home in the fold of hysterically funny and intellectual discussion and happy to be here.  I will not vote for Hillary, but I cannot vote for McCain either.  You see, in my opinion the system of corruption that operates under the guise of our government, the current administration and the Congress, along with the military industrial complex, the large pharmaceutical corporations including tobacco, and the corporate owned media, would love nothing better than for McCain or Clinton to win for one simple and excruciating reason; both of them are dishonest and corrupt and both of them will ensure, maintain and sustain the continuing "Pig Trough of Greed" that is our current system of government.  (By the way, that phrase is an insult to real pigs everywhere!)

As a rural Dem, I cling to my faith and our cultural traditions like guns and hunting, because I do not count on my government to be there when I need it most.  God knows the freezer full of elk meat, 4-H hog meat, and 4-H lamb is sustaining my family through a rough recession that from our viewpoint has been going on since shortly after 9/11.   By the way, I work two full time jobs and so does my husband.   We can not afford good insurance.  Ask me if I am bitter and fed up.

So, what do you think about that? 

He who has hope has everything!  Sometimes, that is all that we have.   God bless us all and keep us safe.

MaggieCat

If she were to steal the nomination from Obama, there is no way I could support her. But, as much as it would pain me to, I would have to hold my nose and cast my vote for McCain. No, I said that wrong. I would have to vote against HRC. If I stayed home, that would be a de facto vote for HRC.
If Hillary somehow steals the nomination from Obama, I will write in Obama. If he puts her on the ticket I'll still vote for him (unlikely he'll do it since she pollutes his message of change) and hope Hillary spends four years going to funerals and ribbon cutting ceremonies in Tasmania and Algeria. What I would love to know is how many Republicans who voted for Hillary will vote for Obama?
How's this....No!  HRC is a ranking member of the party greed that has wrecked our country.

favian.

In this week's Gallup poll:

26% of Republicans who said they hope Clinton wins the nomination said it's because they fear an Obama presidency. (As opposed to hoping she wins the nomination because she'd be easier to defeat.)

But 33% of Republicans who prefer an Obama nomination said it's because they fear a Clinton presidency. So more Republicans fear a Clinton presidency than an Obama one.

10% of Republicans said they would vote for Obama instead of McCain in November.

7% of Republicans said they would vote for Hillary instead of McCain.

I can't find the crosstabs that specify how many said they would just stay home. That might be proprietary. 

This poll was conducted at the height of the Wright publicity, so that may or may not have impacted the numbers. 

 

I would never vote for HRC, so it would be a nightmare if she were to become Obama's VP, I probably would not vote for the 1st time in my life & my husband concurs.

 

  

That is the worst possible scenario, isn't it Dana?  To have to choose between HRC and McCain.  It actually makes me feel ill to even contemplate it.  I can't imagine not voting, but cannot imagine voting for them.  I just pray that Hillary realizes that she is making herself look desparate, and suspend her campaign soon.  I pray even harder that she doesn't have any more friends ready to invite Rev. Wright to tea. 
NEVER. EVER. EVER...I would eat my eyeballs before I would have a hand in putting that hellish excuse for a woman in the white house...
Southern, where are you from?  Louisiana here....

favian~ you ask a really hard question because most of us are so new to even supporting Obama,  let alone having to think what that might mean if he doesn't win the nomination.

I did ponder that question (after voting 25 yrs Republican), I became an Obama Delegate in Iowa which means I officially signed a card that said .....DEMOCRAT.  That was TOUGH! And I still have my toe in the water as a democrat because I think, hey if something goes way wrong...I am still a Republican!

THIS IS WHERE I NOW HAVE A PROBLEM. When I decided to go for Obama, I didn't think I had to make the decision that you pose in the form of a question. I don't even think I have to answer that question even now. Obama is clearly the ONE both democrats and republicans need and he is clearly the one who won and will be the nominee. He will go up against McCain, who I probably would have supported if Obama didn't exist. I dig McCains crossing the party lines..until he morphed into some Bush Hardliner that I would NEVER support even if I didn't turn DEMOCRAT!!! The WORST is someone who has sold his sole for a leadership role. He doesn't even try to pretend he has flipped and flopped and I don't trust his judgemnent anymore! Pretty sure he took a tough line on the FAR RIGHT, but he lost me. And I am campaigining for the ones I love (so far they are democrat) and I give money, too. McCain (not recognizable) lost me, even when I dug him, but I loved Obama BY FAR AND AWAY FIRST!!

AND I HONESTLY CANNOT SAY what the hell I would do if Obama was not the nominee! I KNOW I KNOW!!! I would do what I did in 2004 and ask someone who was going to Iraq "Who should I vote for?" Josh said BUSH, in spite of my feelings about that! Josh was the one putting his life on the line and if he trusted Bush, I trusted Josh. Same thing now. If Hillary were to be the nominee, I would ask someone who's life literally depended on what happened in the future and I would place my vote, my endorsement to that person!

If Obama wins the nomination.....we can at least rest assured, he has an amazing wisdom, beyond his years, to lead us into a more balanced, less crazy time. It won't be easy, but he inspired us to at least try~! I am on board with Obama.

I am not arrogant, but I don't think we need to worry about either of them. I think he should just think of the rest of the primary's and election as a work session and start getting down to what a LEADER NEEDS TO DO!!!

That is my opinion.

GObama 08!!!
 

Favian, welcome here.  Just started visiting this site recently too.  Wasn't trying to nail your back to the wall w the above comment.  Just an opinion.  I'm the blunt type, but mean you no harm by it.  Enjoy.   

Good news for Clinton Supporters: Post-Bosnia, Hillary now has up to a .007% chance of winning the dem nomination if she keeps her mouth shut until December.

 

I would never vote for HRC under any circumstance, so if Sen. Obama offered her the VP spot, my vote will go Republican to stop HRC and I would be sick casting my vote for McCain; really ill.

I'm sorry-I was thrown off by the question. Hillary is NOT going to be the nominee-the question is irrelevant. I think she and Bill are the only ones who are in denial about this fact. She continues to burn bridges with the African American community (as recently as yesterday) and divide this great country in her quest to somehow steal the nomination. I think even her inner circle realize her motives are selfish and power-charged. If she were thinking about uplifting the Democratic Party or the country, she would be stepping aside with dignity or at least campaigning in a positive way. Even if she does wish to continue running-which I have no problem with-she should be focusing on McCain and not bizarre, divisive "race talk" and rumors of what the GOP may have on Obama. I think her supporters are feeling pity for her and none of them want to give more $ to the campaign since it will just go to pay late bills and go back into Hillary's pocket. I know the Supers and others are giving her "space" but that will end soon if her behavior and negativity continues. I don't know what everyone is afraid of with the Clinton's-they had their moments in the spotlight and now those glory years are over-for the good of this nation! I think you can read between the lines but for the record NOOOOOOOOOOOOO. I would never vote for Hillary. I would probably write in Obama's name because he is clearly the leader we need!!!

"I don't know what everyone is afraid of with the Clinton's"

To answer your question Izzy, everyone is scared of the Clintons because they are AWESOME fundraisers and have been able to raise money on behalf of candidates, some sitting and some prospective. The money she raises through her pac is then doled out to people seeking re-election and that's where all the "chits" come in. You wouldn't know about their fundraising prowess with the way she's run her campaign, but they both rake it in for other candidates. So, those who've received their money will stick with them through thick or thin as "payback,"so that's why people are scared of the Clintons. Now, once Obama is in office the Clintons will be ECLIPSED by him and that's what scares them and they won't have a chance to re-write their legacy. Similar to the second chance Bill got as Arkansas governor after they threw him out after his first term.

As for the rest of your post, you hit the nail right on the head. :)

^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
As far as I know, I have no reason to believe Hillary Clinton is a monster; there's no basis for that, I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

Golf11-Thanks for clarifiying those fears. What about the media, though-why are they treating her with kid gloves? Why did they not report on that fraud case? When Obama takes charge, I hope all those "deals" and "favor trading" will be reduced if not eliminated (ok-maybe I am naive!) Have a great week-end RFOers!!! You are all awesome!!!

They are treating her with kid-gloves because she is a woman; just like they treated Obama with kid gloves for a while because he is a black man. I don't agree with eitehr excuse, but in fairness to the media, in all the years that they've been covering the campaign for president they've never been faced with these two particular "options" so in a new situation you make it up as you go along. It's easy to attack white men but attack a minority and it just "seems" unfair no matter what. I mean any time race is brought up by a white person in reference to obama somehow it playing the "card" even if it isn't intended. Take Hillary's latest statements, now presume Obama was white and hillary said "I'm winning the the white working class voter" (you know, the flip side to the media's spin on her comment could be "what she's actually saying is she's popular with the countries' red-necks" and we all know the connotation associated with "red-necks.") Nonetheless, what she says is true and in my view there's no maliciousness intended in the statement. She was in fact responding to an AP story about her appeal to white voters... I go back to my constant refrain "it's all about context." Much in the way I gave Wright the benefit of the doubt I will give her the same benefit. But since it's Obama, the race card is coming up. What if Obama said he's winning all the black vote, that would or could scare white people (the flip side there could be interpreted that he doesn't appreciate just having the black vote), but he's a bit more savvy, so he doesn't bring it up. I hope this makes sense and somehow answers your question; this is simply my opinion and you know what they say about those! :)

 

^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
As far as I know, I have no reason to believe Hillary Clinton is a monster; there's no basis for that, I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

I assume it bothers everyone else here that one of the arguments cited against Obama is that his votes from the black community are somehow less important than votes from what is being called "blue-collar whites." Do these people realize what they're suggesting?? Perhaps we should just give those voters 2/3s of a vote and make it official. That's the kind of thinking underlying that mentality. We could even re-disenfranchise women while we're at it.

what's even more distressing to me barbara is that whites have a substrata (white-wine drinking, latte sipping or white blue collar, lunch bucket voters) and blacks, well they're just black voters, the pollsters and media doesn't even BOTHER to break out the differences. Have you notice that when they talk about Hillary it's "what does she have to do to get the black vote back" when they talk about Obama, they say "what does he need to do to EARN the white vote."

^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
As far as I know, I have no reason to believe Hillary Clinton is a monster; there's no basis for that, I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

Golf, you are so right about the lack of a substrata when discussing the black vote.  I hadn't thought of it in exactly those terms before.  I had thought in more general terms. as "why do they assume that every black voter thinks and votes in the same way?" but never as difinitive as this.  Thanks for pointing that out, and educating me a bit more. 

I had the thought earlier tonight that Hillary and those harping on the white vote are way off base.  If whites only voted for Hillary, then she would have the nomination locked up by now, as there are more whites.  These kinds of comments risk alienating a lot of voters of all races.  Pretty stupid, if you ask me. 

I was just thinking about this today! The first part. About how whites are separated into what they call "educated affluent whites" (because other whites aren't educated), "middle class whites," and "blue-collar whites." There are also white men and white women, independent and swing whites. But blacks are just, well, black.

It's bizarre to me and so illogical the way the whole thing is handled. "Barack couldn't have won the nomination without the black vote." Well, okay, I guess. But Hillary couldn't have won her states without the white female vote. So what? Do some demographics count more than others? Apparently so. 

No, it's not that some count more it's just that it doesn't matter, who needs to no that there are different types of black...hell, they don't do it to for Latino or Asians either. Well I take that back, they do it for Latinos they're either legal or illegal.

^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
As far as I know, I have no reason to believe Hillary Clinton is a monster; there's no basis for that, I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

It's so bizarre.....And no matter how they divide and subdivide the voters, the bottom line is 1+1=2, and the person with the most 1's adds up to the winning number. 

I recently read an article from Diversity Inc that sheds some light on this.  Let me see if I can find it and post it.  It's an interesting and very non-divisive anthropological-type article. ( I may have mad that word up ;-)

 You no=know I really need to stype yping as if I'm using my blackberry. You guys must think I'm dupits.

^^^^^^^
Golf11, NYC
As far as I know, I have no reason to believe Hillary Clinton is a monster; there's no basis for that, I take her on the basis of what she says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

No, not dupits, just drunk.....lol  sorry my friend, I couldn't resist.  Don't worry, I speak typos fluently. ;-)

You are so right!  But it is actually worse, she actually infers by her wording "hardworking Americans, hardworking whites"... So does that not also imply that the rest of us hardworking Americans who are not white, don't matter, also our hard work is diminished too?  Oh my little pea brain.  Back to work I go.

MaggieCat 

Isn't it odd that all three of us are having similar thought processes today?  I guess it is true what they say about great minds and all that......;-)

Hey Guys,

 Below, are her exact words, and yes, you may say that she was referring to the AP article, but a honorable candidate would not allow herself to sink to such a despicable level.  Oh that'a right, she is not an honorable candidate.  Silly me. 

 "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she told USA Today. They said she cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."  (Hillary Clinton)

Ladies and Gentlemen, my other reason for never supporting this vile woman.  I have given my reasons and background on many other occasions, so I  won't  repeat myself again.  As a Hispanic woman, it is never a long trip to racism against the next group of people of color.  And Golf, you are right, we are broken into two groups; legal and illegal.

MaggieCat

Follow RFO:

TwitterCafe PressFacebook

RSS

 

 

RFO Gear

Subscribe to General RFO Newsletter

General news and announcements for republicansforobama.org. We will never share or sell your email address.