Who more "progressive" do you want nominated, then explain just how he/she gets 270 electoral votes.

[BzaDem]

75. The Goldwater splinterization was precisely what enabled Democrats to pass the great society.

With Goldwater on the ticket, Democrats won so many seats in Congress that they were able to pass Medicare, Medicaid, and a host of other liberal programs that remain to this day.

This Congress could not survive another election without Goldwater on the top of the ticket. Democrats lost 47 seats in the House in the 1966 midterm elections (erasing the entire gain of 37 seats gained in the 1964 election). The great society would likely never have passed the 65-66 Congress without Goldwater on the ticket in 64. Despite 7 Presidential wins since, they have never been able to reverse the gains we made during that Congress. The Congress that Goldwater resulted in permanently changed America.

You really want to see what Republicans can permanently do to this country with a similar (but opposite) outcome?

"If the vile loons win a few elections, oh well, they will be so thoroughly hated"

In other words, you are fine nominating someone you know won't win, so that the tremendous harm that will befall the public will change their voting behavior.

Last time I checked, we had a word for the tactic of using harm to others as a tactic to get one's way. While I have no idea if support for this tactic is permitted on DU, I believe that was what LoZocollo was alerting. It wasn't the idea that you can't support candidates who might not win. (After all, every candidate is a candidate who might not win.) It was the idea that one would support a candidate that they knew would not win, so that the resulting harm to the public will change their future voting behavior.