I will be voting, either Green Party, or writing in a name just for shits and giggles. The Democratic Party is not my party anymore, but you don't understand because you're nothing more than a phony (as a member of the DSA, I would like you to stop calling yourself a "socialist" because socialists don't support shitty trade deals that keep on giving power to the Corporations), who's more than happy to eat the scraps that Hillary will give you. She's proven herself to be nothing more than a lying snake. And I know many Independents who think the same way, right and left, and they will probably stay home election night, because they don't like no one. The Democrats sold their souls with electing Bill Clinton, and they've been going down hill ever since, the progressives have every reason to abandon the party, and tell the establishment to go fuck themselves.
First off, I don't recognize the authority of your corporate entity that you can excommunicate me from my political philosophy, that shapes the identity of who I am. How did you feel when feminist icon Gloria Steinem said girls go for bernie to get laid? Or Albright saying there was a special place in hell for women who don't support Bernie? They're feminist icons in their own establishments, and they sought to distance feminism from Bernie. And now, you're doing the same to me because you recently got a membership card in the mail from some group that you probably paid $29.95 to join.
And second, I see it as incredibly short-sighted on your part. Change isn't just made legislatively, it is made judicially. I want you to stop and reflect for a moment. The conservatives had a 5-4 majority on the Court since Reagan. Just with the most recent make-up we've had, that 5-4 majority showed up in areas such as: citizen's united, abortion, civil rights for African Americans, rights for the criminally accused, rights to contraception, article III standing liability (redefining and restricting who can sue and for what harms, often fucking over the environment), police brutality, labor unions, employee rights, discrimination by employers, and gun control. The Court has gotten it wrong on a lot of conservative issues on the 5-4 split. One of the few glowing areas has been same-sex marriage, where Kennedy splits from the conservatives. Roberts, another recent split on Obamacare, upheld the Affordable Care Act that provided health care to 16 million people. This, to a degree, highlights the radical chance that can occur within one field where the Court is on our side. Another liberal justice will go a long way in fair pay cases (now standing before the Court), access to abortion rights (again, standing before the Court), Citizen's united, and gun control. And, at the very least, as Bush v. Gore--and 8 years of Bush--showed us, the Supreme Court can be of the greatest importance in the most unpredictable of ways.
Further, a conservative justice will all but start and incremental assault on gay rights. Already states are considering legislation pushed by anti-LGBT groups to discriminate against trans-people using bathrooms. A conservative would certainly start these minor restrictions and others (for example, novel issues to the Court: Michigan's sexual orientation-neutral sodomy law* or conversion therapy) to allow discrimination to be a state's rights issue, setting the movement, and real people's lives, back 25 or 30 years in some places.
At this point, we're not talking about Bernie vs. Hillary, we're talking Hillary vs. Trump/Cruz/Rubio. These incremental changes such as the Supreme Court will have huge effects. If the republicans delay, and the dems win, it guarantees a Justice (plus another possible three other Justices who are up in age). Hillary would certainly appoint a justice that would overturn Citizen's United, would uphold corporate liability, that would require fair pay between races and sexes, that would expand labor rights, would expand access to abortion and contraception, and minority civil rights. Even if you disagree with me on one or two or three of theses, there are so many other areas where a liberal Justice would make differences, and Hillary would appoint a liberal justice. Whichever GOP clown would not. And I don't know how you can be so short-sighted to not vote Hillary just because she isn't perfect. Yeah, she may fuck shit up in some places--as would Bernie (because they're human and a lot of pressure is on them)--but she's far better than Trump, Cruz, or Rubio.
And before you start on living in blue state New York, that is a total cop-out that avoids the substance of the issue. This whole #BernieOrBust movement going around, that you were part of before it existed as a hashtag, has got to die. Statistics today can tell with certainty whether the state I'm voting in (Ohio) is even up for grabs among any candidate. They can tell me with a fair degree of certainty who will win the elections, and if they're close enough for my vote to be statistically meaningful. Sure they have faults, but with proper skepticism, they are far more accurate than not (otherwise, Nate Silver wouldn't have a job). But to the substance, if I can say at the outset, that for the greater good of many groups, even if they're not my pet politician or group, that I will vote for the democrats to keep the GOP from fucking shit up, then why can't you?
*Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court case that legalized sodomy as a matter of civil rights, had a concurrence that caused its legalization. O'Conner concurred on the grounds that it was not neutral as to partners (punishing only sodomy between same sex couples) and violated equal protection. In fact, Bowers v. Hardwick, the case allowing sodomy laws, dealt with and upheld a sexual orientation neutral sodomy ban). A conservative Court could easily make slight, but meaningful, interpretations to allow an incremental attack on gay rights in many places.
ETA: And I use the Supreme Court as an example. The president alone is responsible for appointment to executive agencies, diplomacy, executive orders, and certain appointments that handle administrations that can easily broaden or narrow enforcement and rights. Even then, the Senate is probably gonna shift back to the democrats now, so liberal appointments to important organizations (such as the National Labor Review Board) can resume. There is a lot at stake.
