Denise Oliver Velez couldn't have said/ranted it better here, but it bears re-ranting as long as people don't get it. If you fail to vote for the Dem in a general election (especially a close one), YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE for the horrid consequences, in the EXACT SAME SENSE that those who fail to intervene are responsible for horrible crimes like the murder of Kitty Genovese. No, you didn't commit the crime; yes, you could have prevented it, had you and a few others cared enough to act. In fact, not voting is way worse than that example, since the consequences are so far-reaching, and the risk and cost to you are -- unlike confronting a violent criminal -- virtually nil.
I know this sounds abrasive and hyperbolic. Don't worry, you'll thank me later if GOTV makes a difference in a close election, and we get another Dem and flip SCOTUS, which then reverses Citizens United. Because the more we get campaign finance reform, the more likely we are to get better candidates winning the primary. GET IT? It takes time. Just like saving money, with compound interest, does. (If you don't have enough money to do that, that's all the more reason to keep the faux-trickle-down GOP, and all their anti-working-class appointees, out of the White House.) As Elvis Costello said, do I have to draw you a diagram? As Denise Oliver Velez put it, why are you here?
It doesn't matter whether or not Hillary Clinton cares about campaign finance reform or a host of other things. Barack Obama doesn't particularly either, not does he care about a whole lot of other progressive issues, but because enough of his appointees do, it was essential that he win. Even if you accept that Hillary or whoever isn't that far to the left of Jeb Bush or whomever, the consequences of her SCOTUS appointments will be. If we keep winning the White House, campaign finance reform (and a bunch of other stuff) will, slowly but surely, improve. Just as it has with Obama. Obamacare is not a great thing but is a good thing, because it's way better than what we had, and is saving lives. (FWIW, I am among the many here who are hugely disappointed in Obama relative to what he could have been, but still relieved he won.)
Do you still fail to grok that SCOTUS is a sufficiently compelling reason to vote? No George W. Bush, no Roberts & Alito, no Citizens United, no Hobby Lobby. There is simply no denying these facts, and no reason not to vote for the Dem nominee if you care AT ALL about the outcomes of these cases. addendum: In the comments, Musial correctly points out that reversing Citizens United depends on a revamped SCOTUS self-correcting, i.e. blowing off precedent. True that -- but even if they don't undo Citizens, think of all the future horrible 5-4 decisions a better SCOTUS would do away with, not to mention all the other Judicial and Executive Branch appointees from the Cabinet on down. So it's not JUST Citizens, it's all the appointees, who on the whole will be far better under a Dem.
So if you sit out the general in '16, you're a short-sighted idiot, to quote the diagnosis Dr Gregory House would render. (Of course, you may be a nice one. Puppies are nice too, but can't be counted on to make wise, long-term decisions.) If the GOP are like the violent psycho Kitty Genovese-killing criminals (not that bad an analogy, given recent revelations), then you're among the onlookers who do nothing to stop them. Don't stay at home and pout about the nominee; get your ass out to vote like someone who cares about progressive values, and understands deferred gratification, should.
addendum: and hell yes, per Willinois, leave everything on the road in the primary.
