Point of order

During the last two Democratic Presidencies over the past 23 years, there has been a Democratic Congress and President working together for a grand total of FOUR (count 'em) years. 19 years of those were either a Democratic President being stuck with a Republican House or Senate (or both) or a Republican President with a Republican Congress (George W. Bush got a Republican Congress for SIX years) or a non-supermajority Democratic Congress that could not overcome a Republican President's vetoes. Tell me again how much liberal progress gets accomplished in four total years (spread out over nearly three decades? Also, tell me WTF happens after the first two years of a Democratic Presidency that loses us the majority for the rest of the Democratic President's term in office? It seems to have been this pattern with the last two Democratic Presidencies. Why?

Lots of Republicans don't like Trump

Hillary getting some Republican endorsements doesn't mean much more than that IMHO. Besides, weren't some Bernie supporters arguing that Bernie would do better at drawing some Republican support (and he might be getting the same endorsements if he was going to be the nominee)?

It's been a mess since 2010 and the formation of the Republican Tea Party

The Republicans not only let the extreme right-wingers and other fringe elements into their party but they embraced them and their "wrecking ball" philosophy of governance (which they were already sort of predisposed to anyway)- to the point that even the so-called "reasonable Republicans" can't be allowed to be seen as cooperating with Democrats on ANYTHING or risk being attacked and primaried out of their cushy seats by the radicals. Right now, they can rig elections and stack I believe that we will hold on to the WH with Hillary but we will probably have to continue to deal with Republicans being reactionary obstructionists, especially in the House, where they have a stranglehold due to gerrymandering. I firmly hope that we can at least win back the Senate so that Republicans can't insist that we have to hold off on confirming a replacement for the late Antonin Scalia until the American people "speak" on their choice for POTUS in 2020- if the 2016 Presidential Election isn't decided "correctly" (which, sadly, I would not put past them).

Personally

I never get this talk of "lesser of two evils". For one to choose between two "evils", one must first, of course, define both persons as "evil", which is a hard thing for me to do because I would ascribe the label to very few politicians (McCrory in NC being one) but, as far as politics go, when presented with a choice between a viable Democrat and Republican for POTUS, it's always been pretty clear to me who is going to best represent the agenda I support and it has NEVER been the Republican.

Assuming that she is not indicted (which most legal experts do not believe will happen)

I don't see how it stays on the front page. Yeah, we over here can maybe agree that she didn't make the best choices in terms of setting this up but unless it's shown that she did something patently illegal that harmed national security, I just can't fathom how most average people not already inclined to hate Hillary will care. Trump has tons more baggage- and he turns off more people every time he opens his mouth. Hillary- with all of her shortcomings- will still look reasonable and mature by comparison IMHO.

And Hillary (and supporters) haven't been pretty demonized too?

If the thought of Trump becoming President

isn't horrific enough to make them AT LEAST hold their noses and vote for Hillary, then I would question their progressive bonafides/concern for the country. Yeah, Hillary might not be as progressive as Bernie but she won't be a disaster for the country like four (maybe even eight) years of Trump as POTUS. I challenge anybody to make a contrary argument.

Few points

Transgender persons don't carry around "proof" of their GD and there are some people whom identify as Transgender whom haven't been to a therapist yet and officially diagnosed as such and some have yet to start medical transition (and some whom don't plan on medical transition or whom are unable due to pre-existing conditions or medical issues). Being Transgender is such a subjective experience too that can be difficult for one to "prove" it to another person. That being said, I think that, despite letters or some kind f physical proof, it still would be fairly easy for authorities to weed out the people whom genuinely assert they are Transgender from those whom are simply being obnoxious (i.e. right wing fundies entering the "wrong bathroom" to prove a point) or inappropriate. I would also suggest that most Transgender people- because of risks to their own safety (which has been made worse by NC's law and the current discussion of it)- keep to themselves and aren't out to draw attention to themselves.

Has he ever discussed this with his campaign manager

who helped create the system in the first place? Sanders was welcomed into the party to run for President but it seems like he is trying to demand that the party changes its rules to help him- even though if all superdelegates were banned effectively tomorrow, he still would be in the same position as well in regards to pledged delegates.

Or.......

Hillary is a longtime member of the Democratic Party and most voters in the Democratic Primary believe that she is best qualified to be POTUS? Maybe because many Democratic Primary voters don't trust Bernie due to him only recently joining the party just so that he can run for President? Maybe because most Democratic Primary voters believe that Hillary is more likely to deliver on her agenda than Bernie? Maybe because most Democratic Primary voters don't view this election- or the selection of Hillary- as being apocalyptic as some Sanders supporters believe it is?