Why are so many people ready to vote for Hillary?

Blind loyalty and brand recognition. Same reason so many idiots are ready to vote for Jeb Bush, who, by the way, is not much different than Hillary.

Well, lets be frank, all politicians lie, that said. The Republicans are not offering anything new and invigorating to mainstream America. Everyone is so afraid to tick off the conservative Christian base, which is shrinking in demographics. Hillary is offering nothing the Democrats haven't tried before, she is just in a different wrapper. Bernie Sanders is actually trying a new approach, not attacking his opponent, and is slowly gaining ground. Could he be a dark horse? Or could he be positioning himself for a selection for VP? Time will only tell. Back to Hillary, she is already attacking the NRA, and is going after the gun rights, if she wins, she will see this as a mandate to go after firearms in a big way. Combine that with a Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Shumer, and my all time favorite hypocrite Diane Fienstien and you really have nightmare brewing for gun owners. Many Americans will recall her husband had a record surplus (whether it was the Republican Contract with America or B. Clinton's policies are debatable), so simple logic dictate if we put another Clinton in office things will get better right? Put another Bush in, things will get worse? Which is why J. Bush will get creamed. Should Hillary get the nod, and she selects a Latino or Latina, it could be a very interesting time for the Republicans to crawl through.

For the Republicans to make a strong case for themselves, they need something beyond defense, terrorism, christian values, and how stuff was in the past. They need to go after moderates to be effective, and quit attacking immigrants. That has back fired on them in more ways than one. All of us are descendants from immigrants, even Native Americans. My .two cents.

Sgt Kelli Mays - Sergeant; I suspect that it's because many people see the upcoming election as a choice between [1] an unqualified, egotistical, arrogant, autocratic, "corrupt" politician who is likely to severely damage the nation's interest while maintaining the nation's traditional level of graft and corruption and being likely to increase the nation's debt and [2] an unqualified, egotistical, arrogant, autocratic, "corrupt" politician who is likely to severely damage the nation's interest while maintaining the nation's traditional level of graft and corruption and being potentially likely to decrease the nation's debt.

All else being equal the choice devolves to [1] "... likely to increase the nation's debt" and [2] "... potentially likely to decrease the nation's debt" which, on balance, really isn't much of a choice - is it?