The first thing I see is, "White Women" still vote Republican. The second thing I see is, "Having the first woman President isn't that important to young women." With respect to the latter, again, this goes to my theme above about priorities: Young women have placed "indentured servitude to banks" above "first woman president." As for white women voting Republican, that's fucked up on so many levels. I know it's filed under "Cultural War," but white women have to carry the day, here, to get women across the line. And if that's not bad enough, it gets worse: every single demographic is moving further to the left except white women. They won't budge. There was a graph posted here a while ago. The article was celebrating the fact that the country is becoming more democratic. Sure enough, every demographic (but white women has moved to the left). In its exuberance, the article failed to address the white woman vote.

Bernie has 2-3 million donors writing $30 checks to his campaign. No one expected that. But since he can do it, Elizabeth Warren can do it. Why Warren? Because she's a change candidate. Why, as you note, does Hillary have to rely on the establishment to get ahead? Because she's part of a failed establishment. Again, I reject your premise, Skinner. Hillary needs the establishment because she is the hanger-on of a failed ideology. Warren, by contrast, could conceivably garner $30 checks from 6-10 million donors.

It's about priorities, and young women are a reflection of where Democrats are today.

I'm about to Nader Neil deGrasse Tyson, so the next time his name appears in a thread at DU, the thread will be torpedoed by Hillary supporters.

On Bill Maher, deGrasse Tyson said (paraphrasing), "There are more women than men. You can control everything. Why don't you?"