If you are a Sandernista, who refuses to vote for Clinton, let us put it plainly, you are voting for Trump.
Weimar Germany, in which Socialists and Communists fought street battles against each other instead of uniting against Nazi brown shirts, may feel too far away. Still, together they might have won against Hitler. Divided until the very last, they lost.
1968, when anti-war protestors demonstrated against Humphrey, occasioning what journalists and historians have collectively deemed a police riot in Chicago, is too complex, I think. It's absurd to argue the protestors, people like me, should have sat back and put faith in Humphrey, who gave exactly no indication of deserving it, and had never differentiated himself from LBJ with regard to Vietnam. When LBJ refused to run in '68, Humphrey should have too. Instead he campaigned under the banner of "The Politics Of Joy."
Such Joy. Joy and napalm. Joy and the draft.
He may have been something once, way back, in progressive politics, but by '68 was farcical.
Nader is the best case to present to Sandernistas who think it's better not to vote at all than to vote for Clinton. Nader played a key role in Bush's win over Gore in 2000. To put it another way, were it not for Nader, Bush would not have won.
Granted, there was Gore's dull candidacy, Florida votes, an anti-democratic Supreme Court decision. Still, Nader's impact, where it mattered, right at that point of impact, brought us Bush, the invasion of Iraq and all the infinitely many sorry consequences.
For what it's worth Nader, to date, stands by his candidacy. He did no wrong. The rest of us were wrong.
I think that after his exemplary career as consumer advocate, Nader, trying to translate such insights into political acclaim, became, at any speed, the problem.