Jezus H. Ceeryst, Surr...almost the entire population of the US is to right of Canadian conservatives...and to the right of damn near all the conservatives of the free world. We are a right-wing country, which is why we lag the rest of the world in so many progressive agenda items.
Actually it's not; if it were a right wing country, Bernie and his ideas wouldn't poll nearly as well with independents and indeed significantly better than Hillary and Trump among the general populace.
The problem is the campaign finance system which skews policy ever rightward, because the wealthy who preside over it have that self-serving bias, and naturally demand a system of taxes and legislation that favours them, even if it comes at the expense of everyone else.
Hillary was lambasted from the right at one time for being the uber-liberal..."libtard" is the word I think that ilk used. Now, she is being lambasted for being too far to the other side by the left.
And the right hilariously called Obama a literal communist and socialist, so what the hell does their evidently wildly incorrect opinion matter? Hillary could only be considered left vis a vis a lunatic fringe on the right; the same lunatic fringe that would dub Obama as an honest to god Marxist.
Let American conservatives set your clock for you if you want, but if you would take an unbiased look, she is not the monster they have painted her to be...and sold to people without the willingness to see through it.
Look, let's be clear about this: Clinton is corrupt, and she's objectively right wing; I don't need the Republicans to tell me she's an inconsistent fraud, because her voting record and statements, donors, controversies and positions do all that talking for them. If you legitimately believe she's progressive, then the accusation that the conservatives are setting my clock becomes utterly ironic, as they're in fact setting yours; because you think that her
relative leftism to their lunatic fringe qualifies her as one. If I vote for her, it will be in _spite_ of her, not because of her; solely because the alternative is so much worse. This is not good vs evil, this is bad vs worse, end of story.
If a progressive agenda is something that matters to you (I do not know that it does)...the fact that THREE Supreme Court Justices will almost certainly be appointed by the next president should be enough for you to vote for Hillary Clinton with a huge smile of satisfaction on your face. If a progressive agenda matters to you, you should vote for her...and then feel proud of yourself for having done so.
Or buy the myth American conservatives have painted. Hell...they painted the word "liberal" to be a disgusting one...and that's been bought by most of the country. We'll survive the people who have fallen for their crap.
First off, no, three 'almost certain' appointments is almost certainly an exaggeration, though yes, there will probably be appointments.
Second, there is nothing satisfying about electing a demonstrable Wall Street stooge, whether or not she appoints less objectionable Justices than Trump would. Again there is no reason to be happy or enthusiastic about supporting a lesser evil; it is a miserable affair done with utmost reluctance in the sorry acknowledgement that it's the least bad of two terrible options. That's not a cause for mirth.
Third, people don't really buy the idea of 'liberal' as a pejorative. Hell, 'socialist' is on its way out too. More dangerous in my view than failed right-wing attempts to poison the word is the far more successful campaign to associate it with people like Clinton who are not at all liberal.