Wayne Stollings wrote:
I think the environmental position is but one aspect to consider. You can support the best environmental candidate ever, but if there is not sufficient support for election it becomes a potential problem if the more electable but lesser environmental candidate losses to the worse environmental candidate. It will not be a problem as long as everyone supports the better environmental candidate after the primaries. I mention this because the "Bernie or None" approach by some in the 2016 election helped bring the worst environmental candidate into office.
As long as we can keep the worst candidate out we are making some improvement. A sad but true situation for us all.
Agree. In the primary, a key focus should be getting the best environmental candidate that convincingly beats Trump in the polling numbers. But if the best environmental candidate does not make it through, a B ultimately is better than an F when the general election rolls around.