Reply #39: Frankly, Nader was better than Gore on the issues (in my view) but I was 100% Gore because sometimes [View All]

voting for the ideologically superior candidate can divide the left in a way that allows the least ideologically palatable candidate win over the second most progressive candidate.

I'm in Texas and our primary is late. If the nomination is all but sewn up, I'll probably vote for Kucinich. If I lived in Iowa, caucusing for Kucinich instead of a more electable progressive candidate would cause me real concern that I was just helping hawkish Hillary win the nomination.

If Kucinich had even as much as a ten percent chance of winning the presidency, I'd think that was enough of a chance -- and the payoff would be so great -- that'd I'd be all for Kucinich. But Kucinich doesn't have a ten percent chance of winning the presidency.

At what point do I get a better return for my vote by helping a progressive candidate like Edwards or Obama beat Hillary instead of voting for more progressive (but less electable) Kucinich?