We need everyone to leave the Democratic party after they have cast their primary vote.

At the County and state Levels!!!!

when those words mean nothing, it c eases to exist

my affiliation for me, oddly enough shortly after the "firewalls kept going down" and I started receiving correspondence from Hillary's campaign "thanking me for my support and asking for further donations" I responded saying I was still supporting Sanders in the primary and asked them how they got my info? (they never answered but I still get stuff from them even after unsubscribing from something I never subscribed to), then, after the Arizona Party shenanigans, I checked to find my 37 year Democratic party affiliation, was changed for me, without consent or notice to "unaffiliated".

they kicked me out of the party, which will be the largest by far component in my thoughts if I am forced to hold my nose in an attempt to mask the smell of sulfur, and vote the lesser demon this time around as usual. In fact, this betrayal may have unexpected consequences come GE election time if Hillary does win the primary as expected.

So you see, some wounds and changes to independent have been self inflicted by her, and so I feel no responsibility to be loyal to a party that kicked me out just to deny me my primary vote for a candidate not anointed by a now corrupt party establishment that appears to be fond of returning to

[center]the good old days of Tammany Hall

[/center]

for some more. I did not realize what had happened until the news broke. I have always known that the guys fighting against pedoplhiles are indeed them. Those fighting against drugs are usually selling them. Those that are raising hell about a man breaking into their database through their open firewall, probably was doing it and had to cover their ass.

the rolls in closed primary States like mine once shown not to have changed to her (conveniently leaving me still able to hold my nose in the GE by purging only my affiliation just in case I didn't get what they were doing, and could be counted on to still reluctantly vote for her in the GE).

Not really half as slick as they think, it has backfired big time with me, I intend with my new found freedom, won by being purged from the party to vote my ballot line by line according to conscience rather than my once unassailable party loyalty, that loyalty only came because of the option of having my preferred choice in the primary, a choice I no longer believe is open to me, even if I were to rejoin a now corrupted party that resorts to election fraud and Republican style Swift-boating tactics against their own during a primary.

They lost a good, very long time Democrat in me, that has now fully awakened to the fact that the party I was loyal to, and could in the past always be counted on to vote in the end for the nominee.

I doubt I am the only one, the party will shrink to less than 25% of the population after this election mark my words!

It may even get down to 20% because of the blatant corruption and the very real truth that the Democratic party is no longer the party of the workers, the common people, and the poor, but have morphed into the Republican party while they are morphing into straight up John Birchers and Fascists.

pretty unbelievable.... unfortunately it's happened a LOT this primary season...so messed up.

but more the DNC. That's what we need to take down. Every member of the DNC needs to be challenged if they want to keep their job.

It's the members of the DNC that have gone along with the corruption.

Keep that in mind.

There will be someone else that wants the exact same things as she does put in her place. Unless Bernie becomes President.

And the Brock trolls are fueling a great deal of it with their name-calling, bullying, and abuse. I'm amused to see her campaign is wasting money on a tactic that is blowing up in their faces and back-firing so badly. The RW establishment of the Democratic Party is very authoritarian...completely the wrong approach.

what's succeeding and what's backfiring. and the oh-so-republican "anything that gets us a win is great" attitude

Here I am, still standing. All this shit does is make me more determined to defeat them.

I'm not dead yet.

it's about the huge groundswell and momentum he has catalyzed that won't have any obvious outlet if clinton is allowed to saunter up the red carpet to her throne. esp., as it could be, if the "super delegates" are the ones who make the choice "for us." i for one won't be chased out of the democratic party after decades because i'm not republican enough.

there's no denying the sense of pressure building.

affiliation and the DNC will then understand that their unfair ways towards Bernie Sanders has caused a backlash on them. They cannot win if millions leave the Party. And they will better listen to the Bernie supporters instead of putting us down or that we are not important and that Bernie will have a shot at their listening to him. My thought is will they leave in droves or not.

blamed the Liberals because Humphey did not win, they blamed the independents when Gore did not win. They never blamed the party machine that pissed off every one.

that we want addressed. Blaming the supporters of Bernie I can't see that helping the Dem Party win.

vote tabulators are honest and there are enough polling places open.

Kim was just a little slower than Hillary to recognize basic human rights.

and not riddled with corruption, voter suppression, and vote switching, people could, possibly, get behind the presumptive nominee, but the way the primary has unfolded has ignited an anger and backlash that is going to have serious repercussions.

It is understandable that people are going to stand up and push back. They feel their rights have been violated and that the process has been thwarted by the DNC, DWS, and The Clinton Machine which excels at dirty tricks.

Poke a sleeping giant, it will eventually awaken.

in Philadelphia on July 25th! Imagine if 1,000,000 Bernie supporters show up to encourage Bernie to continue to run for the presidency to November after the DNC's hubris denies him and the revolution.

to the convention to protest. This is not going to go away.

They messed with the wrong group of people this time.

you speak my mind. Go Kansas!

"Go Kansas!" aren't words I see very often on DU.

yesterday and lambasted them about the money laundering. It felt like I had shed a skin. Bernie forever. I want the convention to be surrounded by tens of thousands of people silently watching.

I think they are all bought, and terrified of letting honest people have power in the party and government.

So what happens then. A lot of Bernie's people will join The People's Summit, or that other group whose name I forget that's forming, or become Greens, at least for awhile. I really think there will be a mass exodus from the Democratic party.

Or, Bernie might run on the Green ticket or as an Independent. I have no idea, but I bet that "giant sucking sound" is people following him if he leaves.

work to take down every member of the DNC for being complicit in the corruption of the Democratic Party and our government.

They bare putting us in that position. Or we couyld just leave the Party and the DNC loses either way really. ....

Too many are not elected officials. They are lobbyists. They have no business deciding our candidates.

If you remember, let me know, either in a reply here or via a PM, thanks. Looking at alternatives at this point.

There are a lot of Bernie groups there and plans are floating around. I haven't kept track since it is early.

By the way, if a group disappears, I would just wait for it to come back. Hillary's trolls have taken some down temporarily by posting pedophilia photos and then reporting the groups to facebook. Facebook seems to have wised up to this, but I would not be surprised to see it happen again. Most groups seem quite stable.

That's why I started. It actually is rather interesting. i found good local gardening places, that post photos of stuff in stock and growing tips. Fellow old house freaks. Local political groups.

just also have some reservations about it. Have a good one!

I had seen that awhile ago, but it, like so much other info, just passed through and didn't stick (info overload these days). Thanks for suggesting it. There is hardly any info on their web site (I was wanting to see their criteria for candidates who qualify under the Bernie agenda, specifically I wanted to know if they prohibit candidates from accepting corporate money, hopefully so).

Also, I meant to say I agree with what you said about superdelegates in post 28, they are going to go with the establishment candidate unless she is terribly damaged by one of her scandals/investigations, possible but unlikely.

But will the establishment listen? No.

Every institution in the United States has been compromised and no longer serves the people. It's gotta be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up. And if the billionaires want to leave America, let's take their citizenship away and kick their sorry asses out. Let them move to Dubai, but let's never let them back in! Then we'll grow up a new generation of institutions and leaders that Americans can trust and respect. A one man one vote country, where $$$ is not speech!

The DNC has acted like they don't need us, so fuck 'em. My party left me and my family years ago. I hoped the Democratic Party would finally come back during this primary, but instead went all in on their assault on progressive values. They have convinced so many that a moderate republican is a democrat. I'm done with these Corporate elitist pieces of shit. The party leaders have sold us out.

Please see my post #37.

We're going after everyone of the corrupt elected officials.

Please see my post #37.

People need to be clear that we should not leave our party until AFTER we have voted in the primary.

Furthermore, there is nothing to stop us from rejoining the Democrats after this is all over -- if we want to.

It's important to know how Bernie feels about this --- I know the point is to convince him through the petition, but would still like to hear his thoughts on it.

Right now we need to push hard to get him elected in every remaining primary state.

With Bernie all the way.

Sending as many delegates as possible to the convention is about demanding a New, New Deal in America.

Threatening to withhold support from Hillary is NOT the way to be heard. Cynics are not taken seriously as a political force. People so ready to "pick up their ball and go home" are not taken seriously. Cynics don't inspire action.

It is the ULTIMATE in cynicism to believe all is lost without Bernie. It is the ultimate in cynicism to believe WE are POWERLESS to bring about real change in the Democratic party. It is the ultimate in cynicism to believe there is "no difference" between Clinton and Trump.

There is a difference. Bernie sees it. He has said repeatedly that on her worst day she is 100 times better than Trump. He has committed to do everything in his power to make sure we do not see a Trump presidency. He recognizes that the damage a Trump presidency would do to this nation would take decades to undo. A Trump presidency would undo and undermine the things he as fought a lifetime for; things he has kept fighting for despite set backs. It mystifies me that so many who profess to be such strong supporters discount his convictions on this point.

We need to cultivate the hope and confidence in our own power to fight for a New, New Deal. Even if, against the odds we are up against at this point, Bernie is nominated, we would be facing an uphill battle to reshape Congress, and get the necessary legislation through.

I've generally refrained from expressing my frustration, but can no longer keep quiet and watch as the thing most central to Bernie's campaign -- empowering people -- is being stamped out by his own supporters.

I have zero expectation that anything I say is going to change any minds, but the level of cynicism and pessimism expressed by many of the Bernie supporters here has gotten too painful to watch. The attitude is the OPPOSITE of what Bernie stands for. He tells us it was NEVER about him. It was about lighting a spark in us. He fought to be our torch barer, but it looks like that is not to be. If the hopelessness expressed in predictions that Trump will win against Hillary takes hold it will become a self-defeating prophecy. I can't remain silent in the face of the apparent glee some appear to take in seeing an outcome that Bernie shudders at. Where is the confidence that WE can make sure that does not happen?

If enough of us stand up we CAN reshape Congress. We CAN get good legislation through. If we do that, who do you think is more likely to sign that legislation into law? Trump? I don't think so.

It is not about voting for lesser of two evils. It is about maximizing our chances of success. It's about setting up the most favorable conditions possible. Sitting it out and allowing Trump to take the White House sets up the most UNFAVORABLE conditions possible. Enabling Republicans to determine the make up of the Supreme Court sets up the most UNFAVORABLE conditions possible.

On the notion of going "third-party." We do not currently have a functioning multiparty system and Bernie knows it. It's why he ran as a Democrat. The way to create a multi-party system is to implement instant runoff voting. Unless and until that happens, the barriers to third-party success are almost insurmountable. But that is a subject for another post. With regard to Bernie, I don't think he would ever even contemplate a third-party run. If he did, I would lose respect for him. The chances of victory are too low, and the consequences of loss are far too great.

So, What Do We Do?

We fight for every vote from here on out. We send as many Sanders pledged delegates to the convention as possible. We leave any lobbying of superdelegates to Bernie's campaign. Harassing them is damaging the cause.

It's not about Bernie. Bernie tells the truth. When he tells us it is not about him, he means it. Stop making it about him. It's about what he stands for. And it's about telling the Democratic Party that we want them to commit to making the Big Goals a reality. We know it can't happen overnight. We are not idiots. But it will NEVER happen if our party writes off real change as impossible, and tells us to just shut up about it.

A vote for Bernie is a way of saying, Hey, I'm not going to shut up about health care as a right; I'm not going to shut up about the need for workers to be paid a living wage; I'm not going to shut up about demanding that the wealthiest among us pay their fair share in taxes; I'm not going to shut up about cutting carbon emissions. These things are too important to our future. They are too important to our children's future.

Bernie delegates on the convention floor are there to stand for real change. They may not be a majority, but if we are committed to getting as many votes as possible in the remaining states, at least 45% of the pledged delegates on the convention floor could be Bernie delegates. And those kind of numbers are hard to ignore. (You don't "dis" that many people at a televised event.)

I don't see any disagreement with that, even from the most cynical among us.

I also don't know that it accomplishes much. We'll see how the convention goes down. I think the party is quite capable of, and probably at this moment preparing for how best to do so, ignoring the demands/policies of the Bernie delegates.

Even if they put some Bernie issues on the party platform, does that actually accomplish anything?

It would mean a lot to me if the party would eliminate superdelegates for the future and let the people decide. That could come out of the convention, I think, but there's no way hell they'll do it. Anything else (platform planks) seems like more empty words that the corporatists will just ignore.

I agree it isn't about Bernie, it's about what he stands for. I just don't see anything in your well-written post that gets us any closer to realizing those goals.

Last edited Fri Apr 29, 2016, 04:58 AM - Edit history (1)

It may not seem like much, but words in a platform can be invoked when you are lobbying to get co-sponsors for legislation that implements those planks.

We get closer to realizing those goals by redirecting the energy behind Bernie's campaign into lobbying for legislation that implements parts of a New, New Deal, and lobbying for co-sponsors. We publicize the members of the House and Senate who refuse to get on board. We publicize their lame excuses and rationalizations for inaction. We use those refusals and lame excuses as ammunition to mount primary challenges by people who will get on board.

Additional thoughts:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511507143

I think we're just discussing different ways to go about that fight, as is the OP.

What you write in your 2nd paragraph is basically the work-within-the-system approach, right? It's what we've always been doing, and we've been largely ignored by the powers that be.

We now, presumably, have greater numbers, yet still are ignored by the powers that be. We have to change that, somehow.

Our own party leadership fights everything you are advocating for. Primaries of Democratic incumbents are all but forbidden (I think they'd only approve of primarying a leftist in favor of a corporatist). Publicizing betrayals, trying to shame them or scare them to respect the people's demands, those are good actions, nothing we haven't been already trying though, and our track record is not good.

I read the linked article. I liked the part about citizen lobbyists, I think, not entirely sure, dislike the whole lobbyist thing but we have to influence our representatives somehow. I'm wondering how you see that happening? Usually such things are institutionally driven. Who do these lobbyists work for, under what name or organization?

I'm more of the mind that it's ultimatum time for the party. We need very substantial change, and the party needs to show us, now, that they are part of the solution and not part of the problem. By pushing Hillary on us, they have pretty much sealed their fate on this. Most unfortunate.

So, given that, what next?

I think the main problem here is corporate money, and I think a very large percentage of the voting public understands at least that much. We have over 40% of voters who are refusing to affiliate with a party, corporate money is one of the biggest reasons for this.

I am thinking more and more that we need to see a non-partisan party that defines itself on issues of full public financing of elections and of any money elected officials receive (no paid speeches, for example, with a long window of none before and after political employment). Such a political entity would have a platform of no corporate money, retooling our economy to use renewable energy and fight climate change, reversing monopolistic trends, and ending the U.S. empire. Within this entity, there would be separate entities (caucuses or parties, I'm not sure) that would be allowed to position themselves anywhere along the left-right spectrum. The Democratic Party could exist as a center-left entity under that umbrella, or more likely it would be on the outside and we'd be fighting against it, since the party has doubled down on its corporatist agenda.

Anyway, this would connect to the vast disaffected electorate, and give them and anyone else room to be who they are along the left-right spectrum while fighting the issues that transcend all other issues as a united people.

Last edited Sat Apr 30, 2016, 03:29 AM - Edit history (1)

vs. change from outside.

Ultimately, it's not the vows not to support Clinton that sadden me, it's the tone contained in so many of those posts. So many express so much anger coupled with cynical disengagement that the effect is immobilizing. An effect I believe is at odds with Sanders' calls to action.

I should have made a clearer distinction between (1) "cyncial disengagement" posts and (2) posts that express a vow not to vote for Hillary (or vow to leave the Democratic Party) as part of a commitment to work for change from outside (and expressions of hope and confidence that change is possible). The problem is, I've seen very few examples of the latter.

The level of resistance to strategies aimed at bringing about change from within is fierce. The corrupting influence corporate money is a powerful force. But in my experience, an even more powerful force is group think. Years ago I participated in meetings with chiefs of staff in Corzine's and Lautenberg's offices. It was part of the effort to lobby members to object to the Ohio electors on January 6th, 2005. We worked with/tracked the efforts of people lobbying other Senators and Reps. (Later on, I was involved in similar projects working on impeachment and filibustering Alito.) In case of Corzine and Lautenberg, and a number of other members of Congress we kept track of, the senators/reps accepted the proposition that the Ohio electors were unlawfully appointed, but nevertheless were unwilling to commit to joining an objection. The rationalizations for inaction were almost universally some form of "can't win, so don't fight" or fear of "backlash."

Such beliefs and rationalizations for not "rocking the boat" are never challenged inside the beltway (or by the people "out here" who have internalized the rationalizations). Classic group think. The beliefs of the insular group just keep drifting further and further away from reality as those inside the insular group reinforce the increasingly irrational beliefs. In the beltway bubble, the irrationality manifests itself in a complete failure to recognize how damaging their refusal to demonstrate strength of conviction has been to the party. As Bill Clinton once said, "When people are insecure, they’d rather have somebody who is strong and wrong than someone who’s weak and right." This idea has been stamped out by a generalized, and irrational fear of "backlash," or some other vague terrible thing, that will befall them if they show some spine.

There are ways to effectively challenge the rationalizations, but it takes more than phone calls, faxes, and petitions. Those types of calls for action have been falling like water off a ducks back. They are dismissed, almost without thought, by the "can't win, so don't fight" or "impractical" or "backlash" rationalization. It takes a face-to-face lobbying effort. It requires more than going to "be heard" (which is how they try to run meetings with citizen action groups -- come in, we'll "hear you," then go away). Challenging requires back and forth. It requires persistent questioning and follow up that forces them to defend their indefensible positions. Forcing them to "hear themselves" in a way that challenges consensus beliefs that are otherwise never questioned.

The Sanders campaign constitutes a giant leap forward that can be leveraged. It is an example of the power of "strong and right."

Re: Who do these lobbyists work for, under what name or organization?

There are a variety of different ways to structure an organization. One approach would be to create a sort of consulting service for existing organizations like PDA and individuals who want to be more effective advocates of change. The organization would provide training and other services that support initiatives involving lobbying in face-to-face meetings. Strategies would be developed for a limited menu of issues at a given time. Campaign finance reform would be at the top of the list. The organization could help to coordinate activities of different groups, analyse outcomes and adjust recommended strategies accordingly. "Best practices" developed in each area would be published to support DIY efforts.

Different membership levels would be available for people/orgs who want to become "citizen lobbyists," those willing to provide monetary support to enable lobbying efforts, and those who just want to sign up to show their support for a given effort (a show of numbers represented). To be most effective, the organization would need to serve as a clearing house, publishing results of meetings and promoting reinforcing action on the part of supporting members.

The idea is to create a positive feedback loop of action and information. Too often we contribute to some organization and then get no feedback on the specifics of what is being achieved with those dollars. Without information on results, people are less inclined to join or continue to pay dues. Consistently providing that sort of feedback is difficult for groups that rely on over-stretched volunteers. Paid staff is required to provide the required services. Results of meetings, followups, petitions/letters delivered, and other activities need to be published in a way that makes it easy to find out what's going on -- who's being targeted on what issues, legislation being lobbied for, co-sponsors gained, summaries of meetings with transcripts of significant statements, coalition building activities, member recruitment, "headline news"...

The infrastructure necessary to provide services would need to be put in place before you start looking for "clients." It would require a solid business plan. Soliciting small individual contributions from "founding members" may not cut it. (Doing it that way would sort of be like having a service provider like Kinkos come around to collect money from people in a neighborhood in order to build the store.) Finding investors with deeper pockets may be necessary (perhaps even seek to involve Sanders in founding such an org).

Results of efforts are part of identifying "good" and "bad" members of the house and senate. The information would be out there for use by other groups involved in mounting challenges to incumbents. Building coalitions with such groups could be part of the effort.

Depending on the level of success, a "second phase" would be to recruit and train (and pay) some number of citizens lobbyists dedicated to serving a couple congressional districts, and to recruit supporting members from the districts served. A mechanism would be provided by which members help determine what lobbyists focus on -- whether they be federal, state, or local issues (perhaps having members vote to "hire citizen lobbyists" to focus on what they care about most). The initial districts would serve as a "proof of concept." If successful, the organization expands to other districts.

As far as name. Don't know. Any ideas?

With regard to working from outside through a non-partisan party. Some thoughts here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1859679

I just came from another thread at DU that has something that might be of interest to everyone. Watch the videos and check out the website.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=363940

The event it describes is called "Breaking Through Power" that will be in held in Washington in May but it will also be livestreamed. There are some 84 speakers. Go to the website and check out the speakers who will be there. It's impressive. There is a lot of knowledge in those speakers that can be very helpful to all of us.

https://www.breakingthroughpower.org/a-pioneering-civic-marathon/

We can use what we learn there to help Bernie.

I can hardly wait to see this and it is being held prior to the Convention so we may get some really good ideas that we can use.

I don't have time to respond to it all, though I did read it. I like it. It isn't the approach I would come up with, more of an inside the system approach, could work though. Maybe a combination of that kind of approach, coupled with a credible threat of people having somewhere else to go if the politicians won't listen to us.

The other infrastructure piece I think we need is a public funding mechanism. If we had a pipeline of donations available (from individuals only, probably would also want a small size limit on them to prevent any favors being owed) that would allow us to present that option to the candidates, so long as they are signed on to enough of the agenda (the devil is in those details right there). They wouldn't be eligible for our money unless they are willing to swear off corporate money.

One thing Bernie's candidacy accomplished was to show the viability of such an approach. He definitely got enough money to get his message out and be heard. He ran into other institutional obstacles (a deeply entrenched corporate/political/media establishment, and a candidate who had built one of the more formidable campaign machines ever seen), but he had enough money from us to run a strong national campaign. I don't think the most money always wins, you just need enough to run a competitive race, then messaging about the campaign's clean funding and correspondingly clean policies would be able to win many races against corrupt establishment politicians. As people learn about the clean election campaigns they would start to give those candidates extra consideration, and they would start to look at the dirty money candidates as tainted, which they are.

I read your linked article about the viability of other parties, which I have long believed myself, but the times are changing, fast, and the electorate is currently upside-down, with far more people belonging to the unaffiliated independent bloc than belong to either party, an extraordinary circumstance which says the major parties either have to radically change or die. We'll see how that spins out.

... noretreatnosurrender's provided information about what sounds like a fantastic event next month:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=188241

Two different things -- it's the Party's choice, not mine.

We can do what you said, but the Party may push us aside anyway -- in which case, why would I hang with it. I've hung with it since 1972 ... and tired of donating and voting to a Party that has failed the nation's interests as I see them.

change from within vs. change from outside.

It is more difficult for me to envision means of effecting change from outside that would work under our current system. (I believe instant runoff/ranked choice voting is a prerequisite for effective third-party bids.)

I can envision effective means of bringing about change from inside. Discussed more in another exchange:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=188164

Yeah, it is. I've been all about the change from within thing for about 36 years. Hasn't worked for me. So I got perspective.

BTW, Bernie's a Democrat .... more so than Hillary.

It's all about values and principles, not where you are.

Very highly unlikely; the gap is more likely to tighten as long as Bernie supporters don't give up.

As of the latest update at wikipedia:

There are 1016 remaining delegates.

Hillary needs to get 71% of the remaining pledged delegates to win 2383.

Of the 1016 remaining delegates:

832 are in open or semi-open primaries. 184 are in closed primaries (with 60 of those in Oregon, where Bernie support is strong)

That means 82% of the remaining delegates are in primaries where indies can vote, and where Bernie consistently shows his greatest strength.

None of this includes future updates to caucus results, which have consistently favored Bernie, nor inclusion of provisional ballots should lawsuits rule in favor of allowing improperly purged voters their right to vote.

OTOH, Bernie needs to win 655, or 64.4% of the remaining delegates to win 51% of pledged delegates. It's very much a long shot, but still possible for him to catch Hillary in pledged delegates.

Long shots sometimes come in. Which is why it's so important to keep the energy going.

It has come down to this.

don't give a flying fuck about Bernie, what he actually stands for, or the very many of us who support him. They keep on arrogantly telling us It's the Math, or bragging about how many more votes he has when the actual numbers of those who participated in caucuses is unknown.

I, for one, am done with voting for the lesser evil. Even if Hillary gets the nomination by making her platform all of the things Bernie has pushed, I don't trust her to make any attempt whatsoever to push through anything. She'll still be a hawk who will be willing to put limits on Social Security and Medicare, and probably toss even more money to the insurance companies who own the ACA at this point. As for her vaunted support of women, she's already said she's willing to compromise on a woman's right to control her own body. Plus, she did nothing to stop WalMart from aggressively fighting unions when she was on their board.

It goes on and on. And don't blame me or any other Bernie supporter who doesn't vote for her come November, because she will have brought it upon herself, by holding positions totally antithetical to what we believe. And her surrogates who have belittled and insulted us. They will be the ones at fault, not us.

It's basically about working to effect change from within or change from without. Ways to effect change from within discussed in an exchange upthread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1280&pid=188164

it doesn't work; Hillary is dangerous for the progressive agenda, for the country, and for the world, for so many reasons.

one of the biggest reasons for never voting for her is that she is a war hawk with extremely bad judgment and/or intentions.

Debbie L. articulates this very eloquently and convincingly. Hillary is not the lesser of two evils.