To the people driving too fast in the left-hand lane closing in on a car doing the speed limit in the left-hand lane, you should have left earlier!
Need favorable nominees
Because Republicans approved the president's last two choices for Supreme Court of the United States, the Democrats think it is the Republicans' duty to approve the next one. Well SCOTUS has been political for a long time (Democrats -- remember Robert Bork?). Judge Scalia said it best: "As long as judges tinker with the Constitution to 'do what the people want,' instead of what the document actually commands, politicians who pick and confirm new federal judges will naturally want only those who agree with them politically." That is why judges who lean toward enforcing the Constitution instead of interpreting the document are not favorable nominees.
Republicans say, "No Obama nominee to replace Scalia." They also say that the over 65 million people who constituted a decisive victory for Obama three years ago "just don't count."
Support for America
Donald Trump may not be the best presidential candidate but he is gaining in support and popularity due to his support for "nationalism." Good or bad -- most Americans have a deep love for their country and they want a candidate who espouses that. Not one who constantly apologizes for it. We are still a good country -- warts and all.
The liberal point of view is that Mississippi leaders denied expanding Medicaid to make sure the poor will continue to suffer and apparently die from poor health. The reality is that Mississippi leadership did not expand Medicaid because this program was only fully government subsidized for a few short years. Then more of the burden of the outstanding health costs would fall to the state. So answer the question: Do you think our leaders made the decision, so as to kill off the poor, or does it make more sense that they made the decision so as to not bankrupt the state? Your answer will tell you if you are a liberal or a conservative.
Think about re-election
If I was employed by a company whose CEO was pending replacement in a year, and I choose not to perform the duties of my position because I objected to the guy in charge -- guess what? The CEO was hired by the thousands of constituents in the United States who twice elected him and the same constituents who furthermore elected me. If for months, I arrogantly refused to perform my duties, I would be terminated. I would expect that my constituents would, rightly so, think twice about re-electing me.