So are you going to vote for one of the complete-denialist and insane (all of them) Republicans? Or not vote at all which, in a contested state, is the equivalent of voting for the Republican?
Is this Louis XIV-like, "if I can't have Bernie, the Deluge" come from the fact that, perhaps, the comfortable white middle-class people supporting Sanders' nomination won't really be personally affected very much by a Republican president and Republican-packed congress? So for them, it is just a parlor game? Because if it is, I implore you to consider the fate of others - especially the world's poor - under a Republican-madhouse largely ruling the planet. It's not like what I'd like to see, but if it does come down to Hillary or one of the Republicans, then what Naomi Klein recommends (and she, a Canadian, has zero personal stake in the fight) will be the only sane recourse.
This is not 2000, 2008 or 2012 - Bush/Gore, McCain/Obama, Romney/Obama were contests between candidates who were at least sane - so it was fine to pound the pavement and doors for Nader, McKinney or Stein - I did. (The exception was 2004 - when it was pretty clear that Bush Jr. was not sane, so I could not waste a vote and voted for Kerry that year - Nader did not get on the ballot in my state anyway). But this year is different - have you listened to the debates? The Republican candidates are bat-shit crazy and dangerous. Hillary is at least sane and so the chance exists - if we all fucking ORGANIZE -that she can be reasoned with! This is not true with madmen.