Reply #23: As someone who cast his 1st presidential vote for McGovern in 1972

[elocs]

I now understand the difference between supporting a candidate for whom you are ideologically excited about and one who actually has a snowball's chance in hell of being elected. The point of having a nominee is having someone that actually has a chance of winning the election and not just a sacrificial lamb reflecting the fantasies of the left.

The victors get to govern. The far left looks at America and think the reflection they see is themselves while the far right has the same delusion. Each is a little right and likely more than a little wrong but cannot bring themselves to admit it.

Too many DUers live in an alternate universe where if they are exited about a person's stances as progressives that somehow automatically makes that person capable of winning a presidential election. It does not, not even remotely.

Grayson could not even hold his own House seat, and Dennis Kucinich, another who is constantly held up as being the ideal presidential candidate is probably incapable of winning even a statewide Senate seat in Ohio much less the presidency.

Don't we also need good progressives at all levels of government, in the House and Senate, as well as governorships and other state and local offices?