2016 Presidential elections is a very different year for Democrats. It’s a year that depicts a rift between progressiveness and the traditional Democrats, who were never intended to be more unifying yet seem to benefit from it, and in each election its importance varies- the upcoming one being of higher importance than the previous, because of the momentum from incumbency. 2004 was a similar year in that there was a very grassroots candidate (Dean) who lost due to early gaffes. It seems that this year that happened to Hilary, although it is much earlier than the Iowa primary where Dean experienced his redfaced camera mishap. The sentiment that is getting lost in the obfuscation, or the fragmented viewpoints, is that the maturity of society is determined on how well it can “handle” a different president. Resistance to change is not a new thing, but rather, the progressiveness of a candidate has a net determination, involuntarily by the unwillingness of the opposing party. What I mean by this is, that I think Bernie Sanders would make a better candidate than Hilary, but Republicans would hate to have HIlary as president, and for that reason, Hilary is more progressive for the U.S. because of the culture shock she would cause most paleolithic citizens of the red states. Genders are cultures too; not that it has to be that way, but that is the subconscious reality. I get this feeling of urgency that the U.S. needed a black president and a female president, as fast as possible. And so while I think Bernie is better, he’s not going to change 50% of Americans tolerance to someone who doesn’t wear the pants in the house. And it’s sad. I still want to vote for Bernie, and I think I should, although the effects in reality seem to be much different that those in theory, and that I think affects my decision- it doesn’t matter THAT much, except that it does….