There are only two possible considerations when supporting your candidate for president:

[MrScorpio]

Can they get elected? And are they worth electing?

If either one of those questions is answered with a "no," find the person that will give you two yes answers instead.

It's not about the other guy. It works best when you're voting FOR your candidate, not against the other.

Remember, politicians run for office, statesmen/stateswomen occupy them. Leadership is the harmonious application of charisma, charm, wisdom and backbone. People want a leader, but they need to believe in that leader first.

Think beyond the immediate.

Happy hunting.

[blkmusclmachine]

1. The Republican will always be to the Right, no matter how far Right the Democrats want to go.

[LWolf]

14. No.

While I agree that Republicans are currently to the right of Democrats, and will probably be there for at least the near future, historically that's simply not accurate.

The use of the word "always" negates what you're trying to say.

[joshcryer]

2. This is why we need approval voting.

http://www.electology.org/#!approval-voting/cc04

It's extremely simple, it's democratic, and it lets people choose the candidate they think will win and the candidate that they want to win.

[CentralMass]

3. I disagree. Our votes are the only leverage that we have in the process.

If your party of choice is no longer adequately representing or listening to you and the other party is not an option, voting for a candidate that you don't support in the primary or general is taking away that leverage.

I will visit the polling booth but I will not rubber stamp a candidate that I don't support. In the general, if that means leaving ballot choices unchecked, so be it.

[SidDithers]

5. Welcome to DU...

Sid

[CentralMass]

6. Thank you Sid.

[morningfog]

8. What calculus do you use when deciding which US candidate to vote for?

[SidDithers]

13. ...

Sid

[Romulox]

10. Excellent post. Please don't be intimidated by bullies here. Your opinion isn't beyond the pale. nt

[HereSince1628]

4. I don't think finding another candidate is really the only option

if your choice can't win under a current circumstance or polling result...seems that working harder recruiting more partners to recruit more support is also a possibility, maybe as much to convince your favorite that she/he should put their name on the ballot as to get the support that wins an election.

And such work appears quite consistent with the notion that getting a candidate you want requires going beyond the immediate.

[GeorgeGist]

7. Silly

[Romulox]

9. So much cajoling for Hillary, so early in the process. "Centrists" sound scared. nt

[hfojvt]

11. I notice you put "can they get elected"

In the FIRST position.

I cannot imagine making my choice that way in a primary, to vote for the person that I THINK will win the general, instead of the person that I WANT to win.

I head an odd report about the Truman-Dewey election.

Some people said, that they did NOT think Truman was going to win, but they voted for him anyway.

And that just boggled my mind. Because how does "who I think is going to win" have anything to do with "who I am going to vote for"?

Unless I am some sort of sheep afraid to break away from the herd.

[MH1]

12. In the general election, your choices are severely limited.

On almost all occasions - and all presidential elections in my lifetime - there are only ever 2 candidates for which the answer to the first question is "yes".

And this means that for one of them, the answer to the second question must be "yes" also, while "no" for the other.

It is a very, very simple thing, but new voters sometimes don't see it because it is obscured by emotional factors such as youthful idealism and optimism.

Now in the primary, it's very different, and the argument should always be about what candidate best gets a yes to the second question while being a strong yes to the first question.