Paul Crowley wrote:

I’m not advocating a vote for Clinton here - actually I think I’d advocate the opposite simply on the grounds that party unity is more important at this point - I’m just trying to add some useful data that might inform the debate. However:

If you vote for who is electable with no regard for what you want, then what you want is forgotten. If you vote for what you want with no regard for who is electable, you end up in the People’s Popular Front of Judea, you make no real impact (except perhaps splitting the vote if the voting system is poor), and so what you want also goes out the window. If you want to play a meaningful role in the voting process, you have to make a measured compromise on this one.

tonyg wrote:

Unless the person you’re told will win is the person you want.

vanort wrote:

Wow, talk about loosing sight of the forest for the trees. If we vote for who we’re told will win, rather then who we want, then we’ll never get who we want.