If you were/are a Democrat, would you prefer Clinton or Sanders (or someone else)

Jimmy Carter, with Jay Leno or Oprah as Vp.

I’m looking forward to learning more about Lincoln Chafee from R.I.
Rachael Maddow interviewed him last week, and I got a good first impression.

He was the only Republican to vote against the invasion of Iraq. Since then, he has changed parties twice (Independent and then Democrat) as the Republicans moved farther and farther right. It appears his principles have remained steady.

I’d prefer Bill Clinton over Hillary, but that’s not constitutional.

My daughter can’t stand Hillary. She is for Bernie all the way. I’m still undecided. I was looking a O’Mally then Baltimore happened…..

I’d love to vote for Elizabeth Warren, but she’s not running.

Martin O’Malley.
I considered having a magnet made for my car.

Hopefully the Republicans will field a candidate I can vote for, but I’d love to see someone give Hillary a run. If someone could beat her to the nomination, I’d have to vote for them out of respect.

Elizabeth Warren.

Obviously she’s not running, so I’m glad she’s in the Senate.

Bernie, if at all possible. But I will vote for whoever the nominee turns out to be. It’s just too important not to!

Clinton, hands down.

I’m a Dem and less-than-thrilled with any of the Dem candidates. For me, Clinton carries too much scuffed baggage and seems too tired for the job. As for Sanders, I like much of his rhetoric but just can’t picture him as Prez and leader of the free world. Like @augustlan, however, I’ll vote for whomever our nominee turns out to be.

O’Malley, @Pachy.
Raise your trunk for O’Malley.
He’s Bill Clinton and John Edwards without the sex scandals, IMO.

Sanders in a New York minute!

I’ll vote for Joe Biden (if he runs) or Bernie. I’d never vote for Hillary (I don’t trust her, she seems phony and she’s a lousy speaker).

Bernie’s got a long track record of populist words and action.
Anti-big-banks, anti-TPP, pro-free-education, pro-single-payer-healthcare, pro-social-security…it is a long list.

Hilary has a long track record of corporatist war-hawk words and action, but recently started parroting words of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders to attempt to look populist. e.g. in 2012 she hawked the TPP at a speech in Singapore either lying or naively stating it will promote U.S. jobs and promote workplace safety, and these days she won’t respond to questions about it.

Clinton is too tied in to big money. I love that Sanders has sworn off any PAC money. I would call it a gutsy move, but I think Sanders would be as surprised as anyone else if he got the nomination. His motive for running must be to get some ideas out there and to try to push Clinton to the left. As for the general election, I would have a hard time voting for Clinton. I have a personal dislike of her and do not find her trustworthy. Right now I am contemplating voting for the most progressive third party candidate. I do not think that would be wasting my vote. If a progressive third party candidate cost the Democrats the presidency then it would send a pretty clear message that it is time to move more to the left.

@LostinParadise, or it would give the republicans the presidency like Nadee did in 08.

I see Clinton as carrying too much baggage to be taken seriously (Bill as First Husband? Shudder.) Plus concerning Benghazi, she still has a lot of ‘splaining to do.

From what I’ve read so far, I would vote for Lincoln Chafee in a heartbeat. Even better, in the general election, would be a Chafee/Gabby Giffords (from Arizona) ticket.

@Judi Good point!

For me it would be either Warren or Sanders & in my wildest fantasy, they’d run on the same tkt. The thing that makes the both of them so appealing is the same thing which almost assures that Clinton will get the nomination. Hillary is “business as usual”. Her primary strong point to my mind is that The concept of the Republican Party in its current State controlling both the Congress and the presidency is too horrible to contemplate. It will once again boil down to accepting the lesser of the 2 evils.

@stanleybmanly It will once again boil down to accepting the lesser of the 2 evils.

—It has more often than not in my voting experience.

Mine, too, @Yetanotheruser.
Why is that?

The reason we seem to have “lesser of two evils” elections is because the (corporate-controlled) media have selected the candidates by selective coverage throughout the primaries.
If we end up with Hillary vs. (pick any Republican) we clearly have another choice between corporate shills.

As an excellent example take the 2008 presidential election. Polls of likely voters on the major issues showed a majority of voters aligned with the policies of Dennis Kucinich. The “liberal media” (NOT!) have always portrayed Kucinich as if he’s the crazy uncle of the bunch even though he’s a straight-talking populist.