What we saw in 2000 was the judiciary branch via the Supreme Court appoint George W. Bush, President.
I agree that it would be better to support the candidate who best represents our values but in the absence of that isn't it better to vote for the one closest to them who stands the best chance?
Yes, but use your own sense of intuitive reasoning..Ask yourself why are Hillary and tRump saturating the media? Damn, last month, they showed a 55min. tRump speech in it's entirety! Remember TV is for selling stuff. Ever since the mid 50's and the McCarthy Hearings, TV has switched from an informative, intelligent, inquiring mode of acquiring knowledge , into an entertainment candy store..Too many big corporate sponsors cringed and complained at the coverage and commentary and threatened to pull their commercials..and without commercials, there's no TV..
For those wise enough to see it as it is it has no effect. Those two may be good television but they aren't all there is.Hillary was good viewing in 2007 but she was still defeated. Same thing could happen this time but the most important thing is still keeping the GOP from undoing the slight advancements that have been made. Does anyone think that any GOP voter would knowingly lose an election by giving their vote to a candidate that has lower chances of winning? They hold their nose and vote the GOP candidate. What matters to them is getting control. Turning the party to their twisted way of thinking can come later. Perhaps the Democrats should adapt their methodology. Get the White House and then work to get progressive ideas and politicians through.
In a perfect world Bernie would get the attention he deserves but I think that if he isn't a candidate come November his absence won't affect the GOP. Only the Democrats can be hurt.
Why argue about could be and should be?
