You're right, and you're helping me see

that a person's vote is a sacred choice and an essential part of society even if that vote never decides an election; that society only works if people are able to exercise their voice; and that it fails when they can't; and that society can be said to function well as a representation in proportion to voter turnout. (No instance of voter impersonation has decided an election either, but I digress...)

There are those who vote strategically, saying half a loaf is better than no loaf, or half a loaf is better than a baboon. Then there are those who vote their conscience, who would rather vote FOR what they believe instead of against what they fear. That's their (your) right; and no one can say fuck-all about it (or rather, they can say it, but it matters fuck-all) because it's YOUR voice. Authoritarian types might urge you to join their strategy, and they have the right to try to persuade, but no amount of peer pressure should influence your vote—only you.

So put me down on the side of voting one's conscience.

Honestly, I think it's about religion.

Churches have great GOTV. Southern blacks would be a lot more comfortable voting for an active Christian rather than a secular Jew. They've known the Clintons for decades and see them as heroes; but they've never heard of Sanders, or if they have, it's likely to be shade.

Outside of the bible belt, the country is more secular and more aligned with Sanders' vision for the future.

Momentum headed into Michigan.

Viability. People saying he can't win, yet he does.

Oh, she's transparent all right. We can see right through her.

And even if none of this passes in 8 years,

and I know most of it won't, I would at least know we'd have an honest presdient making decisions every day thinking about people like me and not continuing to stack the deck in favor of the wealthy.

If by some miracle there is progress on one of these fronts, that's still FAR better than what any other candidate is shooting for. So my choice is clear.

Now that the public knows what's possible, I think we will get there someday. I might not live to see it, but future generations will. But if you attempt only what you know you can achieve, you have compromised before you begin.

Bernie has changed the conversation, completely. Have you noticed these Republicans talking about poverty and wealth inequality? That's not by choice!

MLK never delivered on a color-blind society.

Does that mean he had bad character?

FFS, these are statements of belief that speak to the candidate's priorities. Even if NONE of the policies he advocates are implemented in my lifetime, I know we would at least have a president who places my interests above those of big donors. I trust his decision-making process more than that of any other candidate I have ever seen.

When will people learn

YOUR religion applies to YOU. MY religion applies to ME. Speak your mind all you want, but don't be surprised when other people speak back. If you legislate morality, you will no longer have morality but obedience — and there is a huge difference. As Steiner put it, "a virtue practiced under constraint is futile."

People should be able to think, speak and act however they want, provided they are not hurting anyone else — which is exactly what this bill would do. Glad McCauliffe is likely to veto.

Why red states are red

From what I can see, most of the emotions backing the heated political debates have less to do with politics and more to do with cultural differences. True conservatives are all about cutting spending and limiting federal power, which I can respect but still disagree with; but the vast majority of RW voters turn out so as to deny a win to the caricature of liberals that they hate. Generally, our side is better informed about the consequences of political shifts, but there's plenty of that fear-mongering and caricaturing on our side too. The segregated "bubble" nature of our media is not helping and does not serve us.

Something that could help us get in the mindset of RW voters is to consider that they are willing to deny their self-interest and turn out for divisive social issues because they sincerely believe that they are doing the right thing. They think banning abortion and gay sex will grant the state divine blessings, that will lessen god's wrath during storms and economic downturns. Likewise, the fervor on our side to win is fueled by the belief that we are doing the right things, such as expanding health care to the poor and protecting women's right — not so much to placate a deity, but doing good for its own sake. So the voters on both sides believe they are doing the right thing, and that includes stopping people they see as doing the wrong things. If you can see both sides and understand your opponent's motivation, you're on your way to bridging the divide, and maybe you'll be able to see a solution.

I have to point out here that the RW voter is far different from the RW policymaker, which as we have seen is craven and willing to win at any cost; but the RW voters are looking for a way to do good as they see it. So perhaps we can find a way to offer both sides a seeming win, or frame the results of policy completely out of the realm of partisanship. McAuliffe is on his way to doing that if his pragmatic approach works.

You've hit on an effective strategy for changing minds,

namely telling them they've been lied to. That avoids the defense mechanism of denial and makes you an ally with them against those who have lied to them. This can work on an individual level, one-to-one, but I don't see it happening on a large scale; so I'd have to come down on the A side. But that is no reason not to use it on a small scale.

Our differences are more cultural than ideological. Sure, the leaders are ideologues, but average RW voters vote for people who look and talk like them. They choose their congregation over what they see as hippies on our side. And it is a war to them, with the other side embodying everything evil.

Why do they vote against their interests? Two reasons. One is that they don't see the economic argument. But the other reason is that they are driven by religious zealotry; they are willing to sacrifice even their own economic benefit if they can elect people they think are "pure." So they don't mind keeping their own wages stagnant as long as taxes don't rise and the evil "baby killers" are not in power.

Elizabeth Warren will have COATTAILS

because she is a passionate advocate and her message will resonate with women across the country. Watch the end of this short clip, after she crushes Scott Brown:
http://act.boldprogressives.org/survey/survey_cotv_2012_shifts/?akid=10085.50540.KtKVvZ&rd=1&source=e7-warren-3mo&t=2

That is how you connect with voters. You show your passion, especially disdain for bad ideas, while remembering you're doing this for the good of the country.

Remember, the Republican party also wrote off 51% of the country — women. Paul Ryan is the poster child for coat hanger abortions (and Mitt is too on alternate Tuesdays).

This is why we're pulling ahead in places like Arizona and North Carolina. Romney and Ryan have alienated half the country...twice.

And it couldn't happen to a more deserving pair of entitled, elitist, ideological con men.