Over the last couple of weeks I’ve had several emails, conversations, texts, and Facebook messages from friends and acquaintances, many of whom are die-hard Bernie Sanders supporters. Some made broad categorical statements like “I will never ever under any conceivable circumstance vote for Hillary Clinton.” More of them asked a valid question: Is there any positive reason to vote for Clinton other than (a) she’s a woman or (b) to stop Trump?

The question interests me more than the statements, though they’re both pretty revealing. The statement No Hillary No Way Not Ever can be interpreted as either childish pouting or deeply ideological commitment, and in either of those cases there’s no point in trying to discuss that position. If they’re not going to vote for Clinton, they’re not going to vote for Clinton and my opinion won’t make any difference.

But the question — well, here’s one example:

So – Greg. I was a Bernie fan from the beginning and am still more than a bit puzzled and irritated by the collapse in California. Nevertheless it seems Hills is on her way to launch velocity and I’m trying to figure out whether to work for that event or not. I’m having a hell of a time getting beyond the gender politics that seems to be the keynote of her campaign so far to something that she is offering for which it is worth working. Beyond protecting ObamaCare, what is she advocating for or putting forth that is a clear centerpiece program? While I’m a fan of Obama and he did amazing things with cleaning up the Bush legacy, it’s not clear to me how much more you can campaign on sweeping up after The Shrub, I’m a bit puzzled and while I’ll vote for her anyway, I’d rather not have to feel like I’m just choosing between and L’idiot and a one issue candidate. Your thoughts?

My first thoughts are pretty simplistic. In regard to voting simply to stop Trump, I’d just point out that the lesser of two evils IS the lesser of two evils. I mean, that’s pretty apparent, isn’t it. It’s like being asked “Would you rather have one nail pounded through your foot or two nails pounded through your foot?” Obviously, you’re rather avoid the entire nail-foot situation — but if you had to choose, it’s hard to imagine anybody saying “What difference does it make?” So yeah, if your only reason for voting for Clinton is to stop Trump, I’m okay with that.

As to voting for Clinton because she’s a woman, I’m okay with that too — though I think it loses its significance pretty quickly. I mean, Barack Obama is the first black President of the United States, and while that’s cool and historic, after a while you just think of him as President Obama (unless you’re a racist, of course). When Clinton gets elected (and she will) it’ll be cool and historic that she’ll be the first woman POTUS, but after a while she’ll just be President Clinton (unless you’re a sexist, of course). It’s a very big deal in terms of history, but it’s a lesser deal in terms of governance.

So, in my opinion, there’s nothing wrong with voting for Clinton solely to stop Trump or just because she’s a woman. But beyond that I think there ARE valid, positive political reasons to vote for her.

For example, she’s spoken out against the Citizens United SCOTUS decision which took a badly fucked up political algebra and fucked it up even more by adding still more money into the equation. She’s also spoken out against the Shelby County v. Holder decision which basically invented the ‘personal’ 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. She’s spoken up in support of protecting Roe v. Wade, which has been clipped and pared down to nubbins over the last couple of decades. As president Clinton will have the opportunity to nominate judges who agree with her on those issues for the Supreme Court. That’s a damned good reason to vote for her.

Clinton is in favor of increasing the minimum wage. Not as much as Bernie, sadly, but any increase is better than no increase. She wants to protect civil liberties for LGBT folks; and while her support hasn’t been as consistent over time as Bernie’s, she’s done more than Bernie has in terms of creating actual supportive LGBT policies — including pressing for LGBT protections internationally when she was Secretary of State.

She’s in favor of expanding and strengthening Obamacare. Bernie’s plan was, I think, theoretically better, but again this is an issue of taking what’s good and improving it. It’s not a radical step forward, but it’s still a step forward.

That’s the thing about Hillary Clinton: she’s an incrementalist. She’s not a revolutionary, and even though this country could use a wee revolution, it’s not going to happen now. When she’s elected Hillary Clinton will make some things incrementally better. She may, it’s true, make some things worse — but they’ll be incrementally worse. Overall, I feel confident the better things will outweigh the worse things.

Hillary Clinton wasn’t my first choice, but she’s my final choice. I’ll support her. I’ll give her a bit of my hard-earned. I’ll vote for her in November and be glad about it. I suspect she’ll be a president in the Obama mold, which overall is pretty damned good. In any event, she’s immeasurably better than the alternative.

It occurs to me that I said almost the exact same thing some fourteen months ago.

It’s no secret that I’ve become disenchanted with the Sanders campaign — and to some extent with Bernie himself. A few folks have pointed out that since the beginning of his campaign I’ve been harder on Bernie than I have on Hillary. And it’s absolutely true — I have been. That’s because I expected more of Bernie than I did of Hillary. In fact, I still expect more of Bernie than I do of Hillary. I expect Hillary and her campaign to engage in traditional politics; I expected Bernie and his campaign to move beyond that.

Let me also say I’m not entirely opposed to traditional politics. When practiced with integrity, politics is about getting stuff done. It’s about finding the seam between what’s ideal and what’s possible. But when practiced with cynicism or ego — and way too often these days, that’s the default toggle — politics becomes about tearing down the people with whom you disagree.

Which brings me to this. Over the last few days, I’ve seen this posted five times by five different people. All of them are people I like. They’re all people I firmly believe have integrity. They’re people who would never deliberately spread a lie. And yet there’s this:

I don’t know anything about Ron Gavalik. But I do know this is bullshit. I don’t say that because I’ve become a convert of Hillary Clinton. I haven’t — though I accept she’s going to be the Democratic nominee and I’ll work to get her elected. I say this is bullshit because I took the time to look into it. I looked into it because this made no sense to me. I may not be an avid Hillary supporter, but she’s always been sound on the issue of Social Security. I had to wonder if she’d somehow changed her position.

She hasn’t.

Here’s how this sort of pernicious bullshit gets spread. It started back before the New Hampshire primary, when Bernie made a categorical statement that he’d never accept any sort of cut to Social Security. Daniel Marans, a reporter for The Huffington Post, asked the Clinton campaign if they were also willing to make “a red-line pledge not to cut [social security] benefits.” According to the article Marans published, the aide pointed Marans to the Clinton campaign website, in which Hillary is quoted as saying “I won’t cut Social Security. … I’ll defend it, and I’ll expand it.” The aide then told Marans the following:

“She has no plans to cut benefits and, in fact, has a plan to expand them.”

That seems pretty clear, right? But wait — no plan to cut Social Security doesn’t mean she won’t consider it at some point in the future. Could that mean she’s ‘open’ to the idea? Marans then interviewed Nancy Altman, who has a lot of experience in issues involving Social Security (and who, by the way, also does reporting for The Huffington Post). Ms. Altman stated Clinton’s policy statements:

“do not definitively promise not to cut the program.”

That’s technically accurate, though radically misleading. On her campaign website Clinton lays out her plan to extend Social Security benefits and very clearly states “I won’t cut Social Security” but she doesn’t say “I definitely promise not to cut the program, honest, cross my heart, I’m not making this up, pinkie swear”.

Marans also interviewed Stephanie Taylor, the co-founder of the Progressive Campaign Change Committee. When asked for a response to Clinton’s aide’s comment that Hillary doesn’t plan to cut benefits, Ms. Taylor said:

“George W. Bush had no plan to invade Iraq.”

Since George W. Bush DID, in fact, invade Iraq, clearly Hillary Clinton will almost certainly cut Soci…you know, that notion just too stupid for me to even finish writing it.

Let’s review all that. A reporter for The Huffington Post interviewed a Clinton campaign staffer who stated Hillary had no plans to cut Social Security but DID have plans to expand the program. He then interviewed another reporter for The Huffington Post who read the Clinton campaign’s position on Social Security and decided it didn’t include a definite promise not to cut Social Security. Finally, he interviewed a third person who noted that George W. Bush invaded Iraq.

Got that? That bit of rank speculation was then reported at CommonDreams.org under the following headline:

Hillary Clinton Refuses to Rule Out Any and All Benefit Cuts to Social Security

And that leads us directly back to Ron Gavalik’s bullshit claim that Hillary Clinton is ‘open’ to the idea of cutting Social Security benefits for poor folks.

There are valid reasons to prefer Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton. Lots of valid reasons, in fact, which is why I supported Bernie early in the campaign. There’s simply no need to make shit up and smear it all over the Intertubes.

This is exactly the sort of ugly politics Bernie opposed at the beginning of his campaign. It’s bullshit like this — and the willingness of so many Bernie supporters to fabricate bullshit like this — that led me to end my support for Bernie’s campaign. It’s bullshit like this — and the willingness of so many Bernie supporters to believe anything if it suggests Hillary is evil and corrupt — that disappoints me more than any of the ugly attacks spread by the Republicans.

You don’t have to lie about Hillary to support Bernie. You don’t have to resort to this sort of bullshit.

I ain’t worried about no Trump.

He’s not going to be president. He’s just not. There’s no way. Let me say that again. There is absolutely no fucking way Donald J. Trump is going to become the President of These United States. I’m completely confident in saying that.

Well, I mean, I suppose it’s possible. It’s also possible that the supervolcano under Yellowstone National Park could erupt again later this week. After all, it’s been 650,000 years since its last eruption. So it’s within the realm of possibility. But is either of these massively calamitous events anywhere near likely to happen? Nope.

Here’s the thing: first off, Trump’s got no ground game. Sure, the guy’s pretty good at holding big rallies. Rallies are great visuals. All that spectacle — excited people waving signs and calling out the candidate’s name. That looks impressive on television and in news photos. But rallies don’t get voters to the polling stations on election day. You want to win an election, you’ve got to get voters to places where they can actually vote. You need a political infrastructure designed to both encourage voters and to shift their bodies from the sofa to the voting booth. Infrastructure is NOT flashy or exciting, so Trump and his crew of political remora haven’t devoted much time or effort to putting that infrastructure together.

Second, Trump hasn’t been tested against a Democratic candidate. He’s been ‘debating’ against dumplings who couldn’t really attack him because they mostly agree with him. And when they didn’t agree with him, they were afraid to alienate the Republican base (I almost said  the ‘lunatic fringe’, but now that IS the Republican base).

I mean, look — in the Republican debates Trump could rise up on his hind legs and say astonishingly stupid things like “We’re not winning. America doesn’t win anymore. We don’t win. We’re just not winning.” and his opponents couldn’t say “What the fuck are you talking about — winning what?” They couldn’t say something like “Well, sure we’re winning, of course we’re winning” because that would be seen as supporting President Hussein Bams of Muslim, Kenya. If you look at the order of the fuckwits who dropped out of the Republican race, you’ll see that the most rational candidates dropped out soonest. The Republican primary was never a contest to determine who was the best person to govern These United States. It was always a contest to see who was the biggest asshole.

Which is why Trump’s biggest competition came from Ted Fuckin’ Cruz, the man whose own political party would vote him Most Likely To Be Left To Starve On An Ice Floe. Ted Fuckin’ Cruz is so actively disliked that if a plane carrying Republicans crashed in the Andes, they’d starve before they’d eat him. I don’t think anybody actually believed Ted Fuckin’ Cruz was the Zodiac Killer, but a lot of people wanted him to be. And that’s the guy Trump had to beat in the primaries. You put Trump on a debate stage with any Democrat not currently in a coma and Trump will explode like a popcorn fart. All it’ll take is somebody using a calm voice and saying “Well, no, building a wall along the border with Mexico is just a silly idea.”

But even if Trump had a ground game, and even if Trump was a competent conservative debater, he still couldn’t win the coming election. The math is against him — and math is a merciless sumbitch. Only about 23% of the electorate (those folks who are eligible to vote) are registered as Republicans. Democrats do a bit better (32% of the electorate) but the biggest voting bloc in the U.S. right now are Independents and unaffiliated voters (at 39% of the electorate). The remaining 6% are registered as Libertarians or Green Party or one of the whackadoodle political fringe groups.

So even if every registered Republican shows up at the pools and votes for Trump and if fully half of the unaffiliated and Independent voters experience a psychotic fugue state in the voting booth and go for Trump, that’s still only 42% of the electorate. That’s the most optimistic outcome for Trump.

The fact is, a lot of Republicans aren’t willing to vote for Trump. That’s especially true for women. Depending on which poll you look at, anywhere from 35-45% of women registered as Republicans have said they definitely won’t vote for Trump. Nor can Trump rely on many of those unaffiliated/Independent voters. Almost half of younger voters — those 18 to 35 — are unaffiliated/Independent voters. The same is true of Latino voters; nearly half are registered as unaffiliated/Independent.

Trump’s not getting the women’s vote, he’s not getting the Latino vote, he’s not getting the vote of any minority group. Trump’s wheelhouse is mostly filled with angry/scared white guys. It sure seems like there’s a lot of them these days; they make a lot of noise and we see them on television all the goddamn time — but happily there’s just not enough of them to carry an election.

Trump’s not a serious candidate. The political party he represents is no longer a serious political party. He’s fucked — and with any luck, he’s fucked the entire Republican party. Trump’s defeat may force them to get serious again.

The only way Democrats can lose is by dividing the party and not showing up to vote. Which, now that I say it, is possible.

In other news, back in March of this year locals reported an area of the Shoshone River near Yellowstone National Park was boiling. That boiling has stopped. For the moment.