The most shocking part of the 2016 US Election is that we’re still wasting our time being shocked.

We were shocked and appalled when Donald Trump positioned himself as a misogynist white supremacist. Meanwhile, progressives scoffed at the idea that there are people who would choose to be represented by such a man and were again shocked to find out that there are (a lot of them).

Bernie Sanders positioned himself as a driving force, thirsty for liberal change and a broadened American perspective. His supporters felt that because they were the loudest, they had found a representative with enough momentum to take them to the end and were shocked when their victory got taken away by other, less vocal groups who simply let their vote speak for them.

Hillary Clinton positioned herself as the Obama through line, pledging to piggy-back off of the progress he was able to achieve during his presidency. Her supporters are trying to get over the shock that so many people can’t seem to vote for the most qualified candidate in the election because they “just don’t trust her”.

The complexities of who’s voting for who and why are nuanced, but, as with all elections, the support cultures are generalized into snack-able consensuses of understanding. This candidate appeals to this group. That party supports those issues. These bite-sized nuggets shape the perception of the election for our friends abroad while also affecting the way people in our country vote. This is unavoidable. And when I was visiting family and friends in Europe a couple of weeks ago, I found myself wearied by the supposed insights of the current election.

I’ll be honest, I’m actually cool with the general Trump consensus that I experienced. People are (you guessed it) shocked that Americans would vote for such a horrifying candidate, and I’m in full support of perpetuating the view that a Trump presidency would equal bad news on a global level.

No, it’s the general understanding, or lack thereof, of the Democratic party that has my focus. While abroad, all of the political discussions about the US election that people engaged me in were approached from a place of assumed dissatisfaction with both candidates. Apparently, the overwhelming  assumption is that we all don’t trust Hillary and that this is a stalemate election where we must choose the lesser of two evils or throw away our vote altogether.

I know this is a common belief, and it makes sense that this consensus nugget has made its way around the world – especially with the way the Democratic primaries went down. The Bernie supporters were the more vocal of the Democratic party, but, as proven by the count, Hillary supporters do exist. And a lot of us were voting for her even before Trump entered the picture.

So, with the Democratic National Convention underway, a historic event in which the first woman will (officially) be named the nominee of a major US party, I’m hurling another nugget into our understanding of this election. There are people who have and will continue to put their full support in our girl, Hill. And despite any of her “drama” that has been pushed into the forefront of the media’s coverage of the election, she has (some) people’s full and complete faith. We didn’t need to be convinced, and we are dead set on convincing. In the eyes of many, she is not a second choice; she is the one and only.

I could (and would love to) go on about how others in my party should take some advice from Sarah Silverman (stop being ridiculous) and scold them for being selfish, but ultimately that’s not my goal here. My goal is to morph the general perception of a great candidate. Yes, there are people that just don’t trust her, but there are also people who just do.

(And we’re willing to give you concrete reasons as to why.)