I recall the general reaction of Hillary Clinton supporters being something like this:
"Bernie Sanders supporters need to actually get off social media and actually show up to vote at the primaries."
"Bernie supporters are just spreading right wing bias about Hillary Clinton. She never voted for anything George W. Bush supported, no never!"
"Hillary has no ties to any shady corporations, stop spreading slander!"
"Hillary is not corrupt, shut your mouth."
"Hillary is honest and the most qualified candidate to become President. Sanders is just a senile old man."
Most Bernie Sanders supporters were never going to vote for Hillary Clinton in the first place, she's all the stuff Bernie Sanders was fighting against. Factor in all the bashing, Hillary/Democratic supporters are really trying to leech them to vote for Hillary simply because she's not Trump and are now getting whinny because they refuse to, this is the same textbook the Republican Party and Mitt Romney supporters threw at Ron Paul supporters in 2012 and rant about how they need to vote for Romney in order to stop Barack Obama being reelected.. I'd say the Democratic Party are getting exactly what they deserve and they have no one to blame but themselves if Donald Trump is elected. And speaking of which, realistically speaking most of the trash Trump rants about (that Hillary has a history of enforcing...) would never get passed by Congress. There isn't going to be a wall, Mexico isn't going to pay for it, and there won't be any type of profiling on Muslims. Most of Bernie Sanders's (or Jill Stein's) solutions wouldn't get passed either honestly.
Wow, who have you been with? If I met anyone like that, I'd be like "here, this should get you started sweetie, and give me an hour, and I'm sure I can find more".
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/15/hil...honduras_it_should_be_as_scandalous_as_libya/
"Let me know when you're ready to vote with us, and which candidate you would prefer".
There's also the fact that Clinton manages to cover her tracks well enough to avoid prosecution, from Chinagate to the e-mail scandal, if ex-staff testimony is to be believed. Some say that the news media is part of a cover-up/conspiracy, and maybe that's true, but maybe it is also a case of not remembering the details, and letting it slide. Maybe it's both.
I could have sworn that Hillary said that there were no classified e-mails on her server while being interviewed by the FBI. My father says that she didn't remember. Then again, given that she has lied before, I think she just used the 30,000 e-mails she deleted (which were then recovered by the FBI through a cloud server unknown to her, but unfortunately, have been denied public access under the FOIA, so we don't know for sure if they were personal, or something shady is going on here) and the act of plausible deniability to avoid prosecution.
I also think it is possible that all of the FBI agents investigating her, if they found anything, might have been threatened, and/or their family and friends threatened, if they chose to prosecute. In order to sweeten the deal, offers of bribes of some sort might not be impossible, though any monetary bribes would be evident. I've also heard rumors they dropped it in order to investigate the Clinton Foundation of wrong-doings, if someone claiming to be an FBI agent is to be believed. Of course, given that he said the Bureau is mostly pro-Trump, I question the authenticity of his assertions.
I know this all sounds crazy, but we already know that she has lied and done some pretty bad things during her career that have benefited her or her benefactors, either directly or indirectly. There is also evidence that at least some of the primaries were rigged (which those who watched those videos I posted here know). And if there is a vast conspiracy, this is all related, and so the idea of threatening or bribing anyone who gets in the way of this conspiracy is not out of the question. I know I could be wrong. It's just a guess. But if Hillary hasn't done things of question morality (hah, that's putting it lightly!) in the past, I'd probably believe that the e-mails were a mistake (we're only human after all). But I don't believe in coincidences.
At least, it isn't anymore crazy than my father's assertion that Trump will try to take over the country if he becomes President (which we all know would lead to civil war/insurrection, since we Americans don't like being controlled/told what to do/screwed over/having our rights trampled over. Ask the Japanese. Or the British.).
And yes, most of Sander's/Stein's measures wouldn't get passed initially, because most of Congress has ties to people who would tell them "reject any progressive programs they write, or your perks/campaign contributions are history". Actually, they wouldn't even need a phone call. Most of them probably know what to do, and that is be stubborn and refuse to cooperate unless those holding their cheques gives them the okay. But you don't rebuild Rome in a day, and it would at least silence the pundits on the question if you could have a leader like that in the WH, instead of corrupt, bought politicians. The next step would be coordinated efforts to get these free-loaders out of Congress. Hopefully, the Gerrymandering could be overcome with enough votes, because I'd hate to see the alternative come to pass. ;)