The most important idea is to nominate the strongest candidate who will have the widest appeal.

[MH1]

18. NO! There does NOT "have to be more". FUCK THAT. We need to win the election FIRST.

We are talking about a sane, somewhere-left-of-center, DECENT HUMAN BEING WHO DOESN'T WORK FOR RUSSIA ... vs a RUSSIAN AGENT WHO IS AN AWFUL HUMAN BEING ON ALL LEVELS.

Of all the Democratic candidates in any serious consideration, any one of them is a vast improvement over the awful POS currently inhabiting DC. Any one of them who is a reasonably good leader* will appoint qualified staff that will get to work on rounding up the horses and closing the barn doors and pasture gates (or for literal folks, fixing all the agencies that Trump has done his best to destroy if not hand over the keys to the Russians.)

What will they do? What will ANY of them do? NOT REPLACE GINSBURG WITH A KAVANAUGH, for one. NOT floor the accelerator on destroying the environment in all aspects, for another. (hint - "climate change" isn't all there is. The elevation of TRUMP has DESTROYED so much. We can only hope to begin protecting what's left, and hope that's enough.)

FUCK. When will we ever learn?

(to your claim that they need "more" to win - well THE OP SAID the important thing is to win. Whatever we need to WIN, is what we need. Period.)

* unfortunately there's a couple that seem like not good leaders ... that would be my main reason for disqualification at this point.