President would have been nice. But change is much more important. That is why i support to the bitter end!!!! We progressive Democrats need a strong voice and need to be heard. There are a many of us!!!

As is "Not as bad" and "Lesser of two evils". Much to the dismay of party bosses and PR firms the voters have become more sophisticated and are fed up with politics-as-usual.

Every time somebody spouts that tired cliche I am tempted to ask why they prefer the greater of two evils (even if we assume that all the laughable CDS at DU is true that is).

Only two people at this point have any real hope of becoming president. I would 'twere not so myself, but so it is. People either pick Clinton, pick Trump, are deluded/stupid enough to think there is no difference, or are apathetic enough not to care. Sure you can prefer Stein or a write in or Johnson, but they will not, cannot win. Only Trump or Clinton can. So even given, hypothetically, that they are both evil, why would anyone sane NOT choose the lesser evil? To do that is to willingly increase evil, which makes the moral agent making that choice themselves evil.

In voting for "other", I'll be voting against a corrupt system that provides us with a choice between evils. In this case, I think that Trump and Clinton are both unfit to hold public office. Are they "equally" unfit? I don't know, and don't particularly care. But, I can't come up with a reason to vote for either of them.

I think that everyone should vote for the candidate they prefer based on whatever criteria they use.

Which is exactly what I intend to do. If being the "lesser evil" is your criteria than you should vote for Clinton.

My criteria differs.

A vote for an irrelevant candidate is not a vote against any system, it is a vote that will never affect the system in the slightest. Won't improve it, resist it, change it or even attract its attention for a nanosecond. Even if every word you said were true, one of those unfit for office candidates will be president in 2017, nobody else (barring sudden deaths). If you honestly cannot distinguish between them I question how you can have the wherewithal to post coherent sentences, so I'm assuming hyperbole there. One of them will be POTUS whether you like it or not (presumably not, but still true). Putting your fingers in your ears and screaming that you don't like it will not change that. If both are evil, one is lesser evil. I have no idea why people seem to have trouble with the fact that reducing evil given unavoidable evil is improving the outcome over all other possible alternatives. People on the roofs of burning houses tend to jump and sprain their ankles rather than fry and rather than stand there and wish for a magically instantly appearing helicopter as the flames lick at their feet. Rational ones do anyway.

That must be why we have the worst voter participation rate in the developed world. Because they're fed up. PLEASE.

The agenda is far more important than any candidate.

Many of his ideas should be incorporated into the platform and be vigorously pursued. Elections do matter and the winners do get the spoils, but ignoring close and energizing challengers bringing new ideas and new support would be silly and harmful.

Face it, the guy has few friends in Congress. He has fewer endorsements than Ted Cruz. How would he lead this 'progressive push' if he can't even communicate effectively to his colleagues?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

With help from her mentor, Henry Kissinger.