"I won't vote for Hillary in a general election,' 'I'll write in Bernie's name...'

[wyldwolf]

Not that anyone really believes them, but it would be interesting so see how the 'progressive' movement would fare in in ANY election afterwards if they intentionally threw 2016 to Trump or Cruz.

[Ned_Devine]

1. Hopefully it would send a message or give progressives a chance at becoming more than an...

...afterthought. I know the odds are stacked in this country of any group forming a viable third party, but many of us are sick of conservative lite and corporate friendly democrats. Many of us. Is that so difficult to understand?

[wyldwolf]

2. It would send a message, just not the one 'progressives' would hope.

[uponit7771]

4. Petulance has rarely worked positively in the past in the long run

[Ned_Devine]

7. Petulance? Is that what you're calling it?

The alternative is getting in line and accepting the gruel that they keep serving us. No thanks.

[uponit7771]

9. ...or, not throwing the baby out with the bath water. Most of the working poor can't afford that...

... option

[Ned_Devine]

23. I can't afford to live as it is

[upaloopa]

33. And when the repubs privatize Social Security and end Medicare you'll be better off?

The repubs build on victories. That's how the take power away from us. Give them a victory in 2016 and you can kiss any chance of a Supreme Court handing down decisions in your favor for the rest of your life.

[Ned_Devine]

35. Or when HRC says both of those things are "on the table" in negotiations

Don't try to get me with fear tactics. That stuff might work with other fearful voters.

[still_one]

52. Personally I wouldn't waste my time trying to convience anyone who is that committed not vote

for the Democratic nominee in the general election if it is Hillary.

Those that have the Nader mindset that there is no difference between the republican candidates and Hillary, there is nothing you can say or do to change that.

Just looking at the Supreme Court justices that the Democratic presidents have appointed, including Bill Clinton, verses the ones the republicans presidents have appointed.

This really isn't rocket science, and you are not going to be able to reason with that.

[SCantiGOP]

62. Think about this

There hasn't been a single post I've seen here that says a Clinton or O'Malley supporter would consider not voting for Sanders if he got the nomination.
I sincerely hope the site will continue banning people who say they aren't Democrats; i.e., that they would consider not voting for our nominee in November.

[still_one]

70. I have no problem with ANY of the Democratic candidates, and will without hesitation vote for anyone

of them if the get the nomination in the general election, and contribute as much time as money as I can afford.

The site does ban people who aren't Democrats, as long as they are progressives. During the primary season, they will not ban anyone who says they personally will only vote for a particular Democratic candidate in the general election, even if he isn't the nominee. However, if they try push the idea that everyone should not vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election unless it is their candidate, then they risk a violation, and possible banning.

After the primaries are over, and the nominee has been selected, there is no ambiguity in the rules. If they proclaim that they will not vote for the Democratic nominee, it is a TOS violation, and possible banning.

No one is ever forced say who they will vote for in either the primaries or general election, so it really puzzles me why some feel so compelled to announce they won't support the Democratic nominee in the general election if it isn't there candidate.

If they want to taunt the juries to hide their posts, and the administrators to possibly ban them, then they are admitting that when they registered on DU, and acknowledged the TOS, they don't want to abide by them, so they should not be surprised if they have a post hidden or they are banned?

[SCantiGOP]

73. Thoughtful and well-reasoned, still_one

Too bad those qualities are sometimes in short supply here.

[still_one]

74. It sure seems that way. Anyway thanks

[840high]

82. Yes there has. A very vocal

Clinton supporter said she finds Bernie disgusting and can't vote for him.

[SCantiGOP]

94. Maybe the exception that makes the rule

I haven't noticed any Clinton supporters saying they would boycott the Dem nominee, but that send to be a theme of many -not most but many - of the Sanders supporters' posts.
I don't think that attitude is indicative of what either candidate would do, but they can't control their more rabid supporters.

[mythology]

31. The alternative is to work to elect more progressive officials at lower levels

The Republicans didn't start running nut jobs for President. They started running them for smaller offices first. Please note, I'm not calling Sanders a nut job.

If you do that, you will not only have more progressives in position to move up to higher offices, but you will also acclimate the voting public that liberal isn't a dirty word.

The alternative to losing is hard work.

[Ned_Devine]

34. Good answer!

[TIME TO PANIC]

27. AMEN!!!!!!

[Jinx]

43. that was the hope in 2000

That 4 years in the wilderness would strengthen the progressive element of the Democratic party. Al gore was republican-lite, don't you know, and after 4 years of Bush the party would come back more liberal and stronger than ever.

It didn't work. It has never worked. It only leads to 4 years of ruination visited by the Republican party, and a democratic party that trends even MORE to the middle in order to lure moderates. Do you remember how vigorously the Democrats opposed Bush (ie not at all)? He got almost everything he wanted for 8 straight years.

[Ned_Devine]

44. We had Howard Dean in '03 and '04 until the party establishment did everything they could to destroy him

[George II]

97. Yeah, great message. If you're sick of "conservative lite" (which isn't the case anyway, but...)

You're going to wind up with conservative heavy.

[cali]

3. Sorry, it's not a one way street. And it is incumbent upon the nominee to build

a winning coalition.

[wyldwolf]

5. If 'progressives' elected a Republican twice in five elections - wow...

... they'd probably have to re-brand as 'compassionate liberals' or something. The 'progressive' movement would be toast.

[Ned_Devine]

6. Why do you keep putting '...' around the word progressive? Do you doubt our authenticity?

[wyldwolf]

8. I mean, 'progressives' didn't really intend to elect Bush in '01, they just got drunk on Nader juice

But for this earnest movement to announce, to advertise, that is their intention, I mean, wow...

[PowerToThePeople]

10. No one elected Bush in '01

The conservative supreme court placed him into power.

[wyldwolf]

11. Watching 'progressives' go from saying she CAN'T win to saying they'll MAKE SURE she doesn't...

... well, just wow.

Here are 6 Truly Awful Things That Will Happen if (when?) Republicans Win the White House in 2016


http://www.forwardprogressives.com/6-truly-awful-things-will-happen-republicans-win-white-house-2016/

[Ned_Devine]

24. You never answered why you keep putting quotes around the word progressives.

[wyldwolf]

25. So?

[Ned_Devine]

32. Why do you do it?

It would be like me saying "Hillary supporters".

[in_cog_ni_to]

12. Gore WON that election afer all the votes were counted. FACT.

I just love how the Third Way keeps blaming Nader for something that never happened.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[PowerToThePeople]

15. Truth.

[jmowreader]

71. Here is the Official Vote Count from Florida

I got this off the 2000 Presidential Election wikipedia page:

Bush: 2,912,790
Gore: 2,912,253
The liberal third-party vote - Ralph Nader and John Hagelin combined: 99,769
The conservative third-party vote - Pat Buchanan, Harry Browne and Howard Phillips combined: 35,270

Let's play with this for a little bit. If Florida had a Washington-style "top two" election system, and half the third-party voters went for the major-party candidate that aligned with their ideology, the result would look a little like this:

Bush: 2,930,425
Gore: 2,962,138

With that kind of a system, all the "butterfly ballot" and "Jews for Buchanan" crap goes away and Gore wins by a slightly-comfortable margin.

[LonePirate]

49. The Nader voters in FL and that horrible ballot design in Palm Beach County sent it to the USSC.

Without either of those, the case never would have gotten to the USSC, if it had ever been filed in the first place.

[Juicy_Bellows]

13. No - how many times must we kill this zombie of falsehood?

You put Lieberman as your VP and you kill your presidency - that and the fact that Gore rolled over and didn't fight for shit is why Bush was selected.

Do we just ignore all the folks that were registered as Democrats voting for Bush in Florida or do we just glaze over that fact?

[Persondem]

39. BS. No Nader = No Bush. That's the simplest fact based exaplanation. Every other reason is

full of if's or maybe's or coulda/shouldas.

[arcane1]

56. Bush was reelected.

[Persondem]

60. and whales swim upside down.

[cali]

20. Huh? What are you going on about?

[George II]

96. Which is why Hillary Clinton will be our nominee.

[rhett o rick]

14. Sander will have most all Democrats supporting him if he wins the primary.

Not that I condone it but, Clinton not so much. It's a fact. A lot of people are coming forward to support the fight against a Goldman-Sachs sponsored government and will be disappointed if the Oligarchy backed candidate is maneuvered into winning the primary.

If you really don't want a Republicon, support the progressive candidate. If you don't want the progressive candidate, be prepared to live with a Republicon.

[msrizzo]

38. Yes he would have our support....

...not because he is so wonderful, but because the Hillary supporters are loyal to the Democratic party. I happen to believe that Bernie will lose to any Republican but I would still vote for him and I would be happy if it turned out I was wrong.

[rhett o rick]

46. That fact is important. Why nominate a candidate that many Democrats don't like? That's a

rhetorical question. The Power That Be don't care as long as Sanders doesn't win and that includes the DNC.

[GoneFishin]

88. Yep. They want a Wall Street candidate in the WH. For them any 1%er will do in a pinch.

[stevenleser]

69. No, he won't. I know a lot of Democrats who won't vote for Bernie

A lot more of us, like me, will vote for him but not bother to work for him since he would be slaughtered in the GE. My work if he won the nomination would be to try to save as many Democrats in the House and Senate and state legislature from the landslide as possible, and that would be a very difficult task.

[grossproffit]

72. Yep. Social media makes some think that support is more than it is.

Twitter isn't reality. I know it will come as a shock to some.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. If Hillary wants the votes of the left she'll have to convince us to vote for her.

"Not as bad" has worn out my nose.

[wyldwolf]

17. 6 Awful Things That Will Happen when 'progressives' give Republicans the White House in 2016

... provided they don't get Bernie:

1. Kiss the Affordable Care Act goodbye: Either through sabotage, or a flat-out repeal, health care reform will be a thing of the past. Not only that, but you can rest assured that Republicans will do everything they can to pass some sort of legislation that makes it nearly impossible to pass any future reforms to help the millions of Americans who won’t have access to affordable health care.

2. They’re going to try to rig elections: If you think these state-level restrictive voter ID laws that target Democratic voters are bad, wait until you see what Republicans can do to rig elections once they have full control on a national level.

3. They’ll set gay rights back years: While they can’t overrule the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage, nor will they have the votes to pass a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage, they’ll still have enough power to find plenty of loopholes that infringe or flat-out restrict the rights of gay Americans. While they might not be able to roll the clock back to the days when homosexuals couldn’t marry or serve in the military, we’re likely looking at eight years (because incumbents almost always win re-election) where gay rights in the U.S. are either stuck in neutral or, more likely, set back quite a bit.

more...

Read more at: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/6-truly-awful-things-will-happen-republicans-win-white-house-2016/

[cali]

22. If Hillary is the nominee and she loses, it's ALL on her. Every little bit.

[draa]

40. This^^^

Roughly 100 million people don't vote at all. Ever. If Clinton is such a bang up candidate then certainly she can convince some of the "non" voters to register and vote in her favor. That said, she better hope she can because many of us are writing Sanders in as our pick if she's nominated.

[jeepers]

55. Without Bernies votes democrats lose

The party will move further right to fill the power vacuum left when repubs became irrelevant. ( If you look you can see that happening to the dem party already.) The demo party as you know it will fade and a new left will rise. Hillary and the DNC will fade.
In four years we will face the repubs again but this time without the 'democratic' elite standing in our way.

If Hillary wins we get to watch her move right for the next 8 years as she claims the democratic mantle and prevents real democratic change.

As to the supremes, you have been warned.

[ThePhilosopher04]

89. Exactly.

If she would run on true liberal principles and conviction, and weren't tainted by Wall Street, losing would not be an issue. IF she gets the nomination, she will lose the general. True liberals don't vote Republican-light under any circumstance. My vote must be earned, plain and simple.

[closeupready]

110. Absolutely right.

[rhett o rick]

48. Since Sanders will get more Democratic voter supporter support against the Republicons

it will be the responsibility of those nominating someone that can't get all the Democratic support. It's your choice.

[stevenleser]

53. I disagree with your #3. If Sanders is the nominee, the huge margin of victory for the GOP nominee

will pull in the required numbers in the Senate and House AND in the state legislatures. They would be able to go either route to propose a Constitutional Amendment and will have the three fourths of the state legislatures and thus what is needed to pass it.

[Livluvgrow]

57. Funny how you

Flip flopped from 08. how can you say one thing thn say the total opposite?

[stevenleser]

68. I explained my opinion of Clinton in my endorsement of her. Funny how that is a

Mystery to you but Bernies flip flop on guns isn't.

Also funny how Bernies flip flop on running now as a Democrat isn't a mystery to you either

[Katashi_itto]

77. How's Whoopi doing and the Kardashians?

[840high]

83. heehee - thank you

[DemocraticWing]

87. It won't happen because, unlike you, LGBTQ people will fight for our rights.

By working for anybody the Democratic Party nominates. Then again, we're more invested in getting either one of Bernie or Hillary elected, rather than furthering your social climbing goals.

[stevenleser]

92. It won't be enough. Sanders would lose by an enormous margin.

I think 1980 is a good example of what we could expect.

[earthside]

18. "Not that anyone really believes them"

This is exactly the kind of snarky arrogance coming out of the Clinton campaign that is hardening opposition to her among progressives and liberals.

A smug assumption that progressives will all get in lock step with the Hillarian cause if she gets the nomination of the Democratic Party for President is, well, condescending and impertinent.

I furthermore don't quite understand this poorly veiled contempt for progressives coming from some of the Hillarians here at DU. Progressives and liberals are the most reliable part of the activist base of the Democratic Party -- alienate them and the election is lost for Democratic candidates at all levels. Yet that seems to be the attitude recently from those here advocating for Mrs. Clinton.

[Chan790]

19. I don't think you understand the mindset of such a person.

The question you ask in closing shows you have no grasp of the actions, mindset or worldview of a person willing to take such extreme actions. Frankly, they wouldn't care how you deemed to treat "progressive" movements because if they were willing to go that far...they'd certainly be willing to continue to go that far until "mainstream" corporatist Democrats capitulated because they realized the only way they would ever win again was to abandon their Clintonian hawkish, corporatist, centrist policies and candidates.

I mean that's a suicide, fuck your friends siege action...the kind of thing you do if you don't care about consequences, willing to do anything to break the position of the mainstream of the party. A political Lysistrata, if you will. Withhold affection until those your disagree with on a course of action capitulate to regain your affection.

Of course I wouldn't go that far, that would be insane. The actions of a crazy person. Some people just want to watch the world burn. Other people are committed to light the match.

[OilemFirchen]

36. "If I can't have you, NOBODY can."

Far too often the results are tragic.

[sadoldgirl]

21. Should that happen, and there are

substantial "write-ins", what will be the reaction
of the party? You really think that it won't take
notice and just accuse the progressives, which would
drive them even further away?

That would be too stupid of the party, and a loss of
constituents, which it can hardly afford.

Already the biggest "party" in the nation are the
independents,not the two usual parties.

[restorefreedom]

26. its incumbent on the candidates to earn enough votes

to win. if they fail to do that because they do not represent enough of the electorate, it is their failure, not the failure of the voters who have a right to vote for the person who best represents them

no one will throw anything except the losing candidate, its the nader bs all over again.

i am so sick of this "let them eat cake" attitude i could

[bowens43]

28. not voting for hillary is not ' throwing the election'

if hillary gets the nomination and loses it is because the american people rejected her. This whole vote for hill or it's your fault is bullshit. hillary is one of the most despised politicians we have ever had. she is devious and unethical . if she gets the nomination and loses the general election the fault lies with those who voted for her in the primaries. if she gets the nomination and loses YOU and her other supporters need to step up and take the blame for what you have done to our country.

[gwheezie]

41. I would say that applies in the primary as well

If not enough dems vote to nominate Bernie, it will be because he got less votes. Unless the dem party flips and decides to nominate the person with the 2nd highest amount of votes. So who are you going to be mad at if Bernie isn't nominated? Hillary? Are you going to be mad at Hillary because Bernie didn't win?
And this is something I found out as I got older. When I've had to make a choice and the one I pick doesn't turn out like I planned, I always would assume so, the other choice would have been better. There really is no way to know that, no matter who we nominate, if they lose the GE the supporters of the other guy (or gal) is going to be positive it is proof their guy would have won. That makes no sense.
I support HRC, if Bernie is the nominee I'm not going to be mad at him or the dem party. It would mean more democrats voted for him.

[Agnosticsherbet]

29. It is neither liberal, nor left, nor progressive to give the white house to Republicans.

Not sure what you call that.

[TIME TO PANIC]

30. I'm sick of being threatened into voting for the lesser of two evils!

[NurseJackie]

61. It's always difficult for me to choose between being patriotic or selfish, too.

Decisions, decisions. It's tough being a mature voter ... I hate it!

[840high]

85. It's not tough to go

with the candidate who shares your views.

[NurseJackie]

90. Yep ... that's what the primaries are for.

[TIME TO PANIC]

106. I've been a 'mature' voter since the 2000 election.

Last edited Mon Dec 21, 2015, 04:23 PM - Edit history (1)

How long do we vote for the most 'pragmatic/moderate' candidate and let our party be pulled further to the right? When do we take a stand and gamble for the long-term? I'm not sure I know the answer, but I do know there are many that are ready to take that chance.

[NurseJackie]

107. Well, as always, that's a decision that they'll have to make on their own.

Are they "feeling lucky today, .... ?" (as Clint Eastwood might ask).

[840high]

108. I'm more than ready.

[TIME TO PANIC]

109. At this point, I'm right there with ya.

Guilt free.

[Thinkingabout]

37. Some of those posting comments as not supporting the DNC may not

Linger long on DU. We have had a couple of examples recently.

[Chan790]

45. It's like I said yesterday.

If Skinner were serious about keeping the GOP out of the White House, he'd make supporting Hillary in the primaries a bannable offense.

Anything else is just shuffling deckchairs on RMS Third-Way Titanic.

[Thinkingabout]

50. It is his site, I rather doubt he is going to ban those who are supporting the nominee.

[earthside]

47. The dysfunctional DNC?

DNC Vice Chair Rybak: Wasserman Schultz "Went On Television And Repeated A Knowing Untruth About Tulsi Gabbard"

MTP DAILY 10/16/15
Reba: Wasserman Schultz Putting 2016 At Risk

No one has to support a DNC like this.


Wassermann Schultz has got to go!

[Thinkingabout]

51. DWS will complete her term.

[Vattel]

59. Too bad so many assholes remain while good people are banned.

(Not implying that you are an asshole, btw)

[Thinkingabout]

64. I am not the one who made the decision. In the case of Manny, the terms of

Service is quiet plain, Manny has been around long enough to be familiar with the rules. This is DU and it has a mission to elect Democrats. Manny I not the first one to have posting privileges revoked and Skinner has made it quiet clear the encouragement to get members to vote against the DNC nominee could result in posting privileges getting revoked. If I violated the rules and was revoked then it would be on me, he can run this site as he sees fit.

[Vattel]

65. I know that he broke the rules. But it is too bad that he did. He is a gem.

[Thinkingabout]

67. Yes it is bad he did not follow the rules.

[leftofcool]

76. They will be gone before March 1

[John Poet]

99. The DNC is NOT the Democratic party.

The people are.

[Thinkingabout]

100. Yes, I am a person and a consider myself a part of the DNC, somebody has to be in charge.

[John Poet]

104. So, what seat on the Democratic National Committee

do you hold?

[Thinkingabout]

105. Oh, no, the DNC is people.

[draa]

42. You've my got support.

We keep hearing how Clinton is the greatest candidate to ever live while at the same time she's so mediocre that she need all our votes. It's pure double speak coming for her supporters. They want to have it both ways so I say let them have it.

If she's all that and then some she can do it without my help. If she can't then too damn bad because Sanders gets my vote either way.

[cwydro]

54. Good luck with that. eom

[Vattel]

58. Hard to predict the long term consequences.

What matters most are the ideas. If enough of the citizenry move to the left, the politicians will follow.

[BlueMTexpat]

63. Anyone who would follow through

on such a pledge - regardless of whoever is the Dem GE candidate - does not deserve to be called either liberal or progressive.

What they are is selfish, short-sighted, petty, and completely undeserving of the right to vote.

[potone]

66. Undeserving of the right to vote? Really?

Just how do you figure that? I would never say that even those benighted enough to vote for Trump or one of the other Republicans are not deserving of the right to vote. That is anti-democratic and unpatriotic.

[BlueMTexpat]

91. If you don't use it at all or

if you call yourself a liberal/progressive and throw your vote away so that any of the current GOP candidates wins, I certainly have the right to believe that you are not worthy of the right to vote.

Or am I not allowed to have an opinion?

As for those who actually would vote for any of the current GOPer candidates, I consider them brain-damaged lost causes who have no sense whatsoever of/don't care how important a vote is, so yes, I consider them undeserving too. I consider that those who would not actually cast a vote for them have at least two functioning brain cells and a higher sense of responsibility, however.

In your universe, I would apparently not have any right to my opinions. Talk about "undemocratic" .... As far as "unpatriotic," I personally have served my country through national service even though that service was not in the military. Do you really want to go "there"?

No matter what my opinion is, the fact is that all who meet the qualifications to vote, can. My issue is that those with that right and who should know better too often let their own selfish short-sightedness determine what they do with it. I saw that happen in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004. I do not want to see it happen again in 2016. I personally will use my vote to support the Dem candidate because whoever that candidate is, there are stark differences between that candidate and any GOper. Period.

[CorporatistNation]

75. Gotta Break This Lesser of Two Evil BS Paradigm

[mikehiggins]

78. Voting for ANYONE not a Democrat is insane.

You don't have to like HRC or MOM to know that even if Sanders doesn't get the nomination EITHER of them is better than ANY of the GOPukes.

[Tommy2Tone]

79. Ask Floridians who voted for Nader.

They gave us 8 years of Bush.

[alcibiades_mystery]

80. Such a bunch of babies

Every one of them will be first in line to vote for the Dem nominee.

To do otherwise, my goodness, how immature and stupid does one have to be?

Meanwhile, the hero of some of these folks got himself shitcanned behind something this dumb? Aren't they embarrassed yet?

[Algernon Moncrieff]

81. There is no difference between Gore and Bush

#ThanksNader

[AgingAmerican]

84. Already making excuses?

A bit early, doncha think?

[840high]

86. Yes. It will be our fault

if the entitled one loses.

[Puglover]

95. You bet it will.

Count on it. 1/2 of the posters in his thread still don't have the story on 2000 straight.

I don't bother engaging anymore. Waste of good time.

[Arkana]

93. It is my hope that no matter who you support this primary season

that you are smart enough to see the folly of allowing any of the clowns on the GOP side to win the general election.

Vote for the candidate you want in the primary; vote for the candidate you NEED in the general. Think what you will of Hillary Clinton, but on her worst day--by ANY metric--she is leagues better than the best Republican running.

This isn't going to be a transformative election. If you want to support Bernie in the primary, then please do so. But realize this: if he's the nominee, you're going to hear a lot of the same attacks we used against John McCain used against us. Even more, because Bernie's even older.

Bernie supporters: If you are truly honest--TRULY honest with yourselves, can you not say you wish he was 10-15 years younger? Does his age seriously not concern you at all?

[Tarc]

98. I have faith that there are more sensible people in Camp Bernie than there are Mannys

It will be a tiny yet vocal handful that will not support the Democratic nominee regardless of who it is.

[liberal N proud]

101. If Bernie supporters truly supported Bernie, would they list to him, if...

If Bernie told his supporters to vote for Hillary, would they still not vote for her?

After all, they support him and follow him. If he said you must support Hillary to make sure the Republicans (Trump) do not win the White House, wouldn't they do what their leader told them to do?

[DrewFlorida]

102. I'm a big Bernie suppoorter. Anyone who says they won't vote for Hilary if she......

is the Democratic nominee, is spiteful and foolish. I'm sure even Bernie Sanders will support Hilary if she wins the nomination. To allow your vote to give a republican a chance to be elected simply because you didn't get everything you wanted is the emotional equivalent of having a childish temper tantrum. Grow up, there is a lot at stake!

Go Bernie!

[ChiciB1]

103. I've Waffled Back & Forth About This Idea...

Just thinking out loud that it would SERVE "we the people" right for letting even our very own Democratic Party that WE want our Democrats to be the Democrats that so many of us joined the Party for. Then I have to think about the horror of just how awful it could be if we got a few more Antonin Scalia's!

This is something that sends shivers up my spine because having to live with such extremely PARTISAN, RIGHT WING idiots might just be the final straw that takes this country OVER THE CLIFF!

While I have NO illusions that Hillary is simply talking more Progressively to gain the nomination, I can't say she'll appoint the likes of Roberts and Scalia and the rest who actually DON'T even try to hide their UBER Conservative Partisanship! Still I'm not completely sure she won't but it seems less likely than not. Just keeping my fingers crossed. If she REALLY does care about the rights of women to chose and many other issues that have been gutted she must follow through.

Yes, I'm a devoted Bernie supporter and my heart is with him I also need to say that casting my vote for her is probably the hardest vote I've EVER had to cast! May have to use my left hand to steady my right hand.

I so wish I could "make" myself feel she's really what this country needs. For me she simply means MORE OF THE SAME, and her ties to Wall Street, Big Corporations and all the rest that have taken this country down a path of deception and GREED!