HOW TO VOTE FOR BERNIE IN YOUR STATE

Posted on | by Ed

To the many people asking, "Hillary Clinton is no different than Trump.
buy synthroid online langleyrx.com no prescription

How do I vote for Bernie Sanders?" the answer is not simple because procedures vary by state. Nonetheless this short step-by-step guide will walk you through the process.

1. Don't. He conceded on June 7 and ended his campaign on July 25.

online pharmacy buy nolvadex online no prescription pharmacy

59 thoughts on “HOW TO VOTE FOR BERNIE IN YOUR STATE”

  • SeaTea says:

    The guide is similar for Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, however there are more swear words involved and a fair amount of verbal abuse.

  • John Danley says:

    Protest votes for this election cycle amount to a self-congratulatory disquisition left in the nonexistent customer complaint repository at Trump Tower. It's too late to burn with Bernie; but there's 5 days, 13 hours, and 28 minutes left to extinguish the orange flames on the malformed genitalia of Caligula.

  • Emerson Dameron says:

    This new FBI Anthony Weiner Email Scandal has reminded me how exhausting the next four years are going to be.

    I don't much care for this Hillary Clinton person. Her political skills, such as they are, are infuriatingly retrograde. She is likely to make a lot of executive decisions that I would not make in her place. I voted for Sanders in the primary because I was not thrilled about the idea of another President Clinton.

    Since you are gracious enough to ask: My feelings have not dramatically changed.

    If you feel the same and it's enough to keep you from pulling the donkey lever next week, I am not sure what to tell you.

  • Tim says:

    @ Emerson Dameron I hear ya. I had to rationalize like crazy to do it; it's never been anywhere near this hard before, but I cast my straight-ticket D vote two weeks ago.

    And, Harris and Sullivan BOTH AT THE SAME TIME? I might be able to manage one or the other, but not that. Seriously, how good could something possibly be?

  • Emerson Dameron says:

    @ Tim –

    Harris is a weird one for me. I discovered his writings on spirituality (the essays that led to the book Waking Up) when I was wasting away from a disease that looked very much like it might be terminal. It would be hard for him to say anything that would make me forget about that.

    Sullivan is a pompous windbag who makes a living from his laughably inconsistent opinions. But I find it quite useful to hear what someone who has put so much energy into skewering the Clintons has to say about next Tuesday's "decision."

  • Greg says:

    Emerson dameron you should really read Harris' theories about airport security and terror, and his implicit but not that implicit contempt for the 4th and 5th amendments thanks to some pretty naked racism. Harris may have useful things to say about his nominal field, or why we should all be atheists, but knowing he thinks s

  • Greg says:

    Emerson dameron you should really read Harris' theories about airport security and terror, and his implicit but not that implicit contempt for the 4th and 5th amendments thanks to some pretty naked racism. Harris may have useful things to say about his nominal field, or why we should all be atheists, but knowing he thinks something makes me automatically skeptical about it, even if I agree. Especially if I agree. He's a terrible, lazy thinker who smugly ignores all contrary evidence.

  • bb in GA says:

    Assembled Leftists of G&T:

    No matter the result next week – Rejoice Dear Hearts !

    You have won the future of the US.

    You already have won the Culture War (compare the Leftist Social markers of Progress among the generations.)

    If y'all can control your Revolutionary selves and not fan a Race War or other social unpleasantness, give it another 20 years and it will all be yours in the grand Fabian Socialist tradition of incremental gains Leftward.

    You got this…

    //bb

  • Lit3Bolt says:

    Also, don't do "Big Bird" or "Satan" or "Donald Duck" as a write-in candidate. Do so proves that you are glib and/or stupid.

    Tired of the "I'm a feckless white, la de dah I can afford to never care about politics" perspective.

  • democommie says:

    Birdbrainless in Ga:

    We'really not all leftists, we,really not all "progs". We are ALL pretty much fucking fed up with so called "Conservatives" fucking everybody who is NOT them.

  • Major Kong says:

    Well, it's not like Trump will destroy the country if he wins.

    Oh wait. He will. Never mind.

    (If anyone needs me I'll be curled up in the corner quietly sobbing)

  • Leading Edge Boomer says:

    Good post, and right to the point. Each generation it seems that a new crop of people needs exposure to realpolitik. Progress is not made by breaking crockery. It is achieved by doing the hard work of assessing where we are, evaluating which goals are feasible, and going for those goals by working with others. Then rinse and repeat.

  • Dom says:

    @bb – Tell us more about this race war you're worried about. Does it involve law enforcement officers shooting random black people on flimsy pretexts, then showing up heavily armed at the inevitable protests? Or are you confusing "race war" with "non-white people living in your neighborhood?"

  • Robert Walker-Smith says:

    That there are people who can look at Clinton and see a 'leftist' still amazes me. She's to the right of Eisenhower on just about every significant issue, never met a plutocrat she didn't like, and her idea of 'health care reform' (as realized by the current POTUS) is a full employment act for the health insurance industry.

    If she's your idea of a 'leftist', you'd have to dig up Francisco Franco to have a 'rightist'.

  • wetcasements says:

    Jill Stein is, in addition to being a kook, a raging hypocrite with hundreds of thousands invested in the very companies she says she'll regulate:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/26/jill-stein-s-ideology-says-one-thing-her-investment-portfolio-says-another.html

    Sorry, but you're either voting for or against a pussy-grabbing fascist this time around. Your smug moral purity isn't going to stop Trump from destroying the lives of non-white, non-straight, non-rich Americans.

  • noshoes says:

    There shouldn't even be the slightest doubt about who to vote for if you plan to vote. Seriously, this doesn't require a discussion at all. People here who say they will abstain or vote third-party to avoid voting for Clinton can fuck themselves; these are not the people who will suffer under a Trump presidency (and there will be many). So you don't like Clinton, boo hoo. I don't like going to work every day or doing my dishes, but you know what? I go to work and do my dishes because I'm a goddamn grownup.

  • Dave Dell says:

    Deep red state – NE – here. I can vote for whomever I wish. Won't make a difference here. Electoral college votes are all that matter. NE would vote for David Duke if he were the R's nominee with the possible exception of the second district providing a single electoral vote for Sec. Clinton.

    It wouldn't matter to the R's if Sec. Clinton received 30 million more popular votes and 340 electoral college votes. They will still control the next four years through arcane Senate rules. No new Supreme Court Justices. Impeach will be the word from the House.

    To my mind the true danger of a Trump presidency is the appointees and advisors who will actually do the work and do the damage to the country. Sadly, I've a feeling that Pres. Clinton's appointees and advisors would only be marginally better.

  • GunstarGreen says:

    "Eat shit, because the alternative is to eat rancid shit and if you say 'Hey, maybe we shouldn't be eating shit at all', you're a terrible person."

    That's really not a great way to convince someone that the American system conforms to any definition of 'good', just sayin'. Kinda makes it seem like an unsalvageable wreck that should be left to burn.

  • Major Kong says:

    I guess the Overton Window has been dragged so far to the right that Hillary seems like a "leftist" to some people.

    I had hoped that one benefit of Bernie Sanders running would have been that people could finally see what an actual socialist looks like. Apparently not.

  • bb in GA says:

    Dom:

    Of course you are right, I'm just hatin' on dark skinned folks (ya know real Black ones) like my daughter-in-law…

    //bb

  • Fiddlin Bill says:

    Re David Dell above: I suspect a strong popular victory for Clinton even if it's an Electoral squeaker (and it may be just that) will be something of a brake on the worst Republican instincts, such as not confirming any Clinton appointed judges, or even mounting an instant impeachment attack. If you want to help the GOP, write in anyone, and that includes in a Red state. We still live in something of a democracy.

  • Fiddlin Bill says:

    Re Gunstargreen above: sounds like you're one of those folks far enough from the flames that you can just warm your hands and talk about what a lovely autumn night it is. You want to see a revolution, go look at Aleppo, or Berlin in the fall of 1945.

  • Emerson Dameron says:

    @Fiddlin' Bill –

    A week ago, I expected a decisive routing of Trump and hoped it might curb some of those instincts, but that doesn't seem possible now because the Democratic Party can fuck up a wet dream.

    This will almost definitely be close enough that the "alt right" will still be able to yank the leash on the GOP and will still have beltway journalists kissing its ass.

    Trump has awakened a balrog that will have to be dealt with, probably awkwardly and painfully over the course of many years.

  • Skepticalist says:

    Anything to prevent seeing four years of "Agent Orange's" pursed lips and circular finger displays is more than enough to vote for Hillary.

  • Bitter Scribe says:

    Neil Steinberg, a columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times, had this reply for people who wanted to cast a third party or write-in vote to "send a message":

    Send a message to whom? President Trump? And what would that message be: "you won but it isn't our fault because we voted for a person who isn't you?"

    Steinberg was taunting the Chicago Tribune for its ridiculous endorsement of Gary Johnson. Read his whole post here. It's very much worth it. In fact, Gin and Tacos fans would be almost certain to like Steinberg's blog, Every Goddamn Day.

  • maurinsky says:

    I used to be the person who crossed my arms and stomped my feet when it didn't go my way, but now that I'm a grown up I recognize that either Clinton or Trump is going to win, and that if I abstain from voting for the better candidate (who, in my opinion, is also the best option…I admit I voted for Bernie in the primary, but considering his track record of accomplishing his goals, I almost immediately felt I made the wrong choice).

    No left-wing candidate is going to get elected to the presidency, but take a look at her policy proposals – it is a progressive platform that progressive people should be proud to support. She's more hawkish than I'd like, but there isn't a better option. The Golden Eagles aren't going to swoop in with Gandalf.

  • NickT says:

    @Dave Dell

    "Sadly, I've a feeling that Pres. Clinton's appointees and advisors would only be marginally better."

    Clinton's appointees and advisers will come from a party that, however imperfectly, believes in competent, honest government that serves the American people. This is considerably more than one can say for whatever appalling combination would be evolved by Trump. Likewise, judges appointed by Clinton would have some commitment to rule of law and justice for all persons regardless of color of skin or religious beliefs. Again, the GOP cannot say as much. These things matter immensely and that is why, although in the short-term a Democratic vote in Nebraska may not matter to the GOP, it remains the right thing to do both as a matter of adding to the national mandate (which matters to more people than Democrats/Republicans) and as a means of signaling that you support the two causes I outlined above. You do not need to be enthusiastic about Clinton to think that those causes are worth fighting for.

  • Mothra says:

    Apotemnophilia. Now there's a word. When I was a new voter, I would vote for the off-brand candidate, thinking myself terribly clever and boldly stated that I was "voting my conscience." Then I got older and the stakes started getting higher, each election. True, our choices in this election are not great, but I will still pick a mud pie over a shit sandwich any day.

    And bb, I for one, am not counting any chickens. I would not be surprised at all to wake up in Trumpistan on November 9th.

  • NickT says:

    @mothra

    Seems to me that a lot of folks vote their ego and call it voting their conscience. Sadly, some people never grow up enough to realize the limits of their own cleverness and what is really driving their decisions.

  • John Danley says:

    Now they're orchestrating a preemptive impeachment should "the lesser evil" win. Instead of doing the "adult thing," reorganizing the party in an effective way (whatever the fuck that could mean), and waiting until 2020, the GOP is antagonizing civil discord and social polarization not seen since the civil war. It's like a bunch of spoiled white babies resurrecting Aryan Nations just to maintain legislative authority. It's reprehensible and irresponsible in a way that rivals standard political doublespeak, hypocrisy, or special interest-motivated theft from the beltway crowd. This is beyond tax policies or domestic economic concerns; it's the incitement of a national crisis via appealing to partisan violence, rioting, race baiting, resentment-driven vengeance, and insurrection. I don't remember government shutdowns or dramatic filibusters being de rigueur during the Bush administration—when shutdowns could have been hypothetically justifiable. This is nothing but extortion akin to Daesh-style fascism. It's like a Bundy standoff with silk cravats. The GOP has decided to go full scumbag pretending to be polished political patriots. The undisputed kings of obstruction, obfuscation, punitive legislation, lowering their own low standards, non-negotiable negotiation, and privileged foot dragging.

  • JustRuss says:

    @Dave Dell

    "Sadly, I've a feeling that Pres. Clinton's appointees and advisors would only be marginally better."

    Not to pile on, but you might want to look take a look at who the candidates tapped to manage and advise their campaigns. It's not even close.

  • NickT says:

    I'll also remind the remaining Berners that the only chance of some part of Bernie's ideas making it into law is if you have a Democratic president in the White House.

    Consider then why you would waste a vote by rejecting Clinton, given that she's the only Democratic presidential candidate available to you.

  • Dave Dell says:

    Even if Sec. Clinton wins (and I will be voting for her) by 30 million votes my view is that the Republicans will not reconsider their stance on anything. No popular vote mandate will stand in the way of their interests. They do not wish to engage in government, deep down they don't even like democracy. They wish to rule.

    The governor here in NE, Pete Rickets (family owns Ameritrade and the Cubs) has funded a repeal of the law ending the death penalty after his veto of the bill was overridden. He has funded Republican challengers to Republican legislators who voted for the override. Sure it's theoretically a nonpartisan one house legislature but that's not how it plays out.

    I give him as an example of the Republican Party mindset. They want to rule and when that is thwarted they will use their power and money to obstruct. Popular mandate be damned.

    Nationally, they will still control the next four years through arcane Senate rules. No new Supreme Court Justices. Possibly few or no new Federal judges. Impeach will be the word from the House.

  • Skepticalist says:

    With Hillary things may not get better but at least they won't get worse. With Trump, things would be quickly worse on every level.

    Too, I can't imagine voting for anyone that chose Mike Pence for his VP. People in Indiana are tickled pink so long he stays away from the place. He's the guy that proposed fetus funerals, just for an example.

  • Fiddlin Bill says:

    @ Dave Dell: of course your predictions re GOP might be totally correct, but I'm very glad to see you're voting for Hillary. "One never knows do one", to quote Fats Waller, who knew a thing or two about racism and people generally.

  • boba says:

    I do not know who will win the election, but I do know who will lose:

    The American People.

    There's a slight hope that there will be a massive Ebola epidemic, I mean we can dream still right?

  • Tim says:

    Slightly OT, but since people are wondering about the chances, it seems like this might fit here. I have mentioned the Iowa Electronic Markets before in this space. They are run by the University of Iowa College of Business and are kind of interesting to look at during elections: http://tippie.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/

    I probably don't have the statistical skills to do a proper analysis, but I pulled a few historical results and have put them below. They seem to have some predictive power and the current prices for this year's race are encouraging. The first three columns below are year and actual percentages of the total vote for each of the two majors.The fourth and fifth columns are the price on the Thursday before the election of the "vote share" markets for each. The second set of three columns below that are the prices for the "winner take all" market, also Thursday before election. The 2016 line in each case is today's closing price. It would appear that the current WTA price is giving Trump a 1-in-3 chance of winning? And that I believe is what I have heard 538 has said most recently.

    Also, the WTA share price for the Dems dropped a bunch after the Comey letter, but has recovered somewhat. So these results seem to be a somewhat hopeful sign.

    Sorry for the formatting; it was hard to fit in without being able to use a smaller font. Also, there are much fuller explanations of the markets at the site.

    YEAR DEM% REP% IEM VS DEM IEM VS REP
    2000 48.4 47.9 .488 .516
    2004 48.3 50.7 .494 .511
    2008 47.5 45.5 .543 .472
    2012 50.0 47.1 .504 .480
    2016 **** **** .547 .453

    YEAR IEM WTA DEM IEM WTA REP
    2000 .298 .700
    2004 .441 .571
    2008 .827 .172
    2012 .740 .284
    2016 .670 .330 (price at 4:30PM 11/4)

  • chuck says:

    Talk to me when the Electoral College is done away with and there are no longer any such things as "battleground states." That, or buy me a house in New Hampshire so I can register there.

  • Robert Walker-Smith says:

    Chuck – if the Electoral College is done away with, a Presidential nominee could win with a majority in the five largest states and zero in the five smallest states. This would emphasize regionalism to a extent that concerned the Founders.

    Granted, they did NOT anticipate the dominance of two political parties, and would have viewed it as pernicious to their ideal of an educated elite running things for the grunting, wallowing masses.

  • chuck says:

    RWS – 80% of the country lives in urban areas. The Electoral College effectively dis- or under-enfranchises that 80%.

    I'd like to think if the 14th Amendment had been more comprehensively written, it would have rendered the EC unconstitutional.

    As it is, as one of the 80%, I'm undecided as whether to vote for Jill Stein, write in Gloria La Riva, or just stay home. Thanks to the EC, that's how much my vote counts.

    And contrary to what the late unlamented Nino Scalia thought, what the Founders didn't anticipate is a lot.

  • John M. Burt says:

    @Emerson Dameron, rather than "the Democratic Party can fuck up a wet dream" I would say, the Democratic Party can strike out during a wet dream.
    Either way, it's frustrating as all get out.
    It is my sincere hope that the Republican Party will soon erode into irrelevance and become a cranky regional third party, while a new second party emerges to the left of the Democrats.
    That can only happen, though, after the Republican party has deteriorated even further than it has now.
    Once it has happened, and people have gotten used to the idea that the Democrats have returned to their historical place as the conservative party, the new leftist party can begin working with the Democrats to change the electoral system to guarantee an affirmative right to vote, ranked-choice voting, &c.
    Actually, I fully expect all of that to happen. What I hope for is to live to see it done.

Comments are closed.