Polls are great, but elections are won on voter turnout

Don't be complacent. Volunteer to register voters and get the vote out. The Clinton campaign is coordinating with local Democratic parties across the country, so you can canvass and make calls for Democrats up and down the ticket at the same time.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/forms/om-hvf-volunteer/?utm_medium=om2016&utm_source=gs&utm_campaign=lb-branded&utm_content=98143790771&utm_term=c

The A Team

Makes an assist

Donations for War on Iran, Tim Canova

"Progressives" are all aflutter over donating to Tim Canova, the challenger for Debbie Wasserman-Schultz' House seat.

It's interesting to see how eager people are to contribute to someone who forcefully argues against the Iran Nuclear Deal and sides with Likud. He is so proud of his position that he posted an editorial celebrating it on his website:

I think there are a few reasons

1) The primary got very negative, and they decided to believe too much of the rhetoric.

2) There have been hundreds of millions spent by the GOP to try to destroy Clinton. There is the obvious right-wing propaganda and the all too successful efforts by the right to spread anti-Clinton propaganda produced for leftist consumption, created and generated to appeal to Democrats/liberals/progressives.

3) The media furthers the negative narrative about her so-called "dishonesty" and lack of "authenticity." This despite the fact that an examination of actual issues by fact checkers showed she was the MOST honest candidate in this primary in either party.

4) She's a woman trying to break into a wholly male world. Social Science literature demonstrates that people view women as less honest than men, tend to believe them less. It isn't a conscious decision to engage in sexism but rather the result of socialization. They don't even think about it. It takes honest reflection to think about ways in which we, both men and women, tend to devalue or undermine women in society. In seeking to rise where no American woman has before, she faces more of that than most.

We saw plenty of what you refer to during the primary. Many truly believe what they say, but they seldom have evidence for it. They don't think they even need evidence. They simply assume it to be true. I saw a response of yours to a post removed (which I didn't see) about money. The entire responsibility for campaign finance has been placed on Clinton individually. Some don't believe she is interested in changing current finance law, despite her policy positions showing otherwise. They also don't realize that the Citizens United case was about an anti-Clinton video. The victory for Citizens United meant that organization could continue to spend unlimited amounts of money attacking her. Of course the implications go beyond that one example to private political expenditures more broadly, but the lack of understanding of it shows how successful right-wing propaganda against her has been among those on the left.

I didn't used to like Clinton. I never for a second considered supporting her in 2008. My stated reason was the Iraq War vote, yet I was ready to support Biden, who likewise voted for the war. I didn't even think about the double standard. Since 2008, I watched her as SoS and started to think more critically about the criticism of her. I looked into her voting record vs. that of other candidates. I informed myself more in this election than any other. I realized a lot of what is said about her is unfounded. You will note that most Democrats/progressives who continue to be very critical of Clinton know very little about her policy positions or even most of her voting record. They simply project ills onto her and will attribute policy positions that are completely opposite of where she stands. I saw over and over against that they weren't even interested in finding out what her positions actually were. The reasons for that, I believe, lie in numbers 1-4 above.

Revolutions, social and political

There is an extensive body of literature on the history and theory of revolutions, both social and political. Theda Skocpol is a leading theorist on the subject:

The Pope isn't Bernie's friend

He shook his hand. The Pope explicitly said anyone who takes his shaking the hand of someone standing in front of his as a political endorsement ought to "look for a psychiatrist." http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/04/16/bernie-sanders-met-pope-francis/83118290/

Completely false, an outright fabrication of Clinton's position

which shows how little these issues actually matter to you. People who actually care about mass incarceration or education bother to inform themselves.

Here are policy statement. This one on criminal justice was the first policy she announced when entering the race: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/criminal-justice-reform/

College education: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/college/

Unlike Bernie, she also has policies addressing the k-12 disparities that cement generation of poverty.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/college/

She also addressing the serious problem of sexual assault on college campuses: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/campus-sexual-assault/

FEC asks for an explanation of Bernie's mystery $10 million dollars

Nope, it's not an old story posted again. This is a new letter from the FEC dated March 30.

The FEC:

A summary of Vaticangate

If you're like me and had other stuff to do in the past 24 hours other than keep up with all the ins and outs of Bernie's travel plans to
Italy, you may find this summary helpful. It's told entirely through twitter posts, which all good DUers know is the incontrovertible source of truth.

https://storify.com/Cajsa/sanders-and-the-vatican-story

Sanders NY Daily News Interview: Israeli-Palestinian conflict