Bernie Sanders is giving Hillary Clinton a run for her money in national polls and in any primary or caucus state without a significant African-American population. But with her edge in super delegates and the likelihood that she can scratch out a majority even if Sanders keeps winning primaries, no serious political observer really thinks she won’t be the Democrats’ presidential nominee. But that hasn’t dampened the enthusiasm of some of Sanders’ most ardent supporters like actress Susan Sarandon. Sarandon set off a mini-firestorm in the world of Hollywood politics by declaring earlier this week that she wasn’t sure she could even vote for Clinton if she won the nomination.

That led to a Twitter fight between Sarandon and Hillary-loving Debra Messing. But Messing wasn’t the only liberal to question Sarandon’s judgment. Would she really sit out November if the general election matchup turned out to be a contest between Donald Trump and Hillary? I don’t think so either. But, I think Sarandon was pointing to a larger problem for Clinton that crosses party lines. As Sarandon seemed to be saying, liberals seem to share at least one belief with conservatives. They both think Hillary is a fake and doesn’t mean a thing she says.

Asked by MSNBC’s Chris Hayes earlier this week if she would still boycott Hillary if it meant Donald Trump becoming president, Sarandon engaged in some pretty heavy duty leftist dialectics.

“Really,” Sarandon said, adding that “some people feel that Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately if he gets in, things will really explode.” Asked if she thinks that’s “dangerous,” she replied, “It’s dangerous to think that we can continue the way we are with the militarized police force, with privatized prisons, with the death penalty, with the low minimum wage, threats to women’s rights and think you can’t do something huge to turn that around.”

Okay, we get the picture. Sarandon is hoping for either the election of a socialist or depending on Trump inciting some sort of rebellion. Dream on.

But the main thing here is that Sarandon probably isn’t the only member of the Democrats’ left-wing base that happens to think Clinton’s mimicking of Sanders’ left-wing positions during the primaries is insincere.

The interesting thing about Sanders doing far better than anyone remotely expected him to do in this race is that it is clearly a function of dissatisfaction with Clinton rather than a belief on the left that the Vermont senator would make a great president. But Sanders has managed to generate enormous enthusiasm by exhibiting the sort of left-wing ideological purity that they love and which is sorely lacking in the chameleon-like attitudes of their frontrunner.

Sarandon isn’t wrong when she speaks about the excitement Sanders has injected into a Democratic primary process that was set up to produce only one outcome: Hillary’s nomination. The question facing Democrats as Clinton limps down the home stretch is whether the Democrats that have felt the bern are going to be willing to swallow hard and vote for the same person they are currently denouncing as a traitor and a friend of Wall Street. Though no one on the left is willing to talk about the email scandal, let alone concerns about the conflicts of interest inherent in the Clinton Global Foundation’s fundraising, it would be a mistake to think that this doesn’t play into their anger about her connections to big business and unwillingness to trust her. Clinton’s inauthenticity could mean that the hordes of young people and minorities that produced Democratic victories in 2008 and 2012 will stay home rather than taking the trouble to vote for an unpalatable compromise named Hillary.

That probably won’t include Sarandon, who probably learned her lesson about the lesser of two evils when she supported Ralph Nader rather than Al Gore in 2000. But others who are not quite so sophisticated may not bother to vote for Hillary. Unless, that is, Donald Trump is the Republican nominee.

In his interview with Sarandon, Hayes hit on the key point for liberals. Whatever they may think of Hillary, Trump may be a powerful turnout engine for Democrats this year. Against a less toxic Republican that would be harder to smear as a fascist, left-wing voters can’t be expected to storm the polls the way they did for Barack Obama. Indeed, no one is likely to duplicate the magic of his historic candidacies. But as Trump’s negative ratings soar among women and head-to-head matchups that show him losing to both Clinton and Sanders, no one in the GOP should be under any illusion about the impact of his candidacy. Even those left-wingers that really hope for the outbreak of a “revolution,” are going to hold their noses and vote for Hillary.

Sarandon’s comments do illustrate the depths of Hillary’s problems with her party’s base. But she can rest easy provided that Republicans don’t stop Trump. He is the answer to all of Clinton’s problems, a veritable “dead man walking” leading the rest of the GOP to a date with the executioner in November.