Reply #6: Again, that argument doesn't win anyone to your pov.

[LWolf]

Again, we've already heard, election after election, that voting for anyone but the annointed party prince will benefit republicans.

I didn't "brush past it," I told you that those talking points aren't working this time, and that trumpeting them over and over again is more likely to widen the divide than close it.

Again, if you really want to bring the disenfranchised back into the fold, it won't be with that argument.

If that's really what you want, of course. If you are not just setting up some good scapegoats for when another election backfires.

What if you accepted that nominating a candidate that divides the party isn't a good idea, and worked to find a candidate that can unite the party? What is so hard to understand about this concept? It seems simple enough to me. Instead of trying to force Democrats behind a "divider," why not work to nominate a "uniter" instead? In this particular crop of candidates, there are some that most of those talking about write-ins would probably support. They just don't include Clinton or Obama. I'm not sure about the rest. Why not work to make sure the nominee is not one of those two? That would be a compromise that those you are criticizing might agree to make. If you think compromise is a good thing, of course.

Or, if you don't think any of the current crop can unite Democrats, work harder to convince Gore to run. I know he could do it.

My point is that, if you really want people in the party to unite for common cause, give them someone to unite behind. Don't scream because they are not uniting behind the poor candidates the mainstream has chosen to put at the top of the heap; find someone else to put there.