I wish we could start from the likely proposition that partisans of each Dem honestly think their person most likely to beat Trump. They may be right or wrong, but presuming folks to be acting in bad faith, "Neo-liberal capitalist shills," or "cult members" isn't helpful...
are there people operating in bad faith? Oh sure, some are. Some just wanna blow everything up; others are trying to maintain their hold on power within the party or economic order. But most really are responding to legit concerns and fears about 4 more years of Trump AND...
...the belief that their candidate is best positioned to stop that as well as implement meaningful changes they (the partisans) believe in. Rather than seeking to impugn the motives of those who support candidates we don't, let's assume honest disagreement...
...& then make the case for a given candidate & focus on the evidence about who can beat Trump in key states (meaning NOT based on national polling, or rally size in other states, or number of donors from other states, or guesswork about "swing voters" which is likely wrong)..
...and let's ask hard questions of EACH candidate, including those we might prefer, to ascertain the answer to the question of electability, by fleshing out strategic concerns, message and framing concerns, and how that might play out on November against Trump...
...it's fine to critique candidates themselves or even supporters as to their statements and behavior. But attacking the MOTIVES of supporters is a recipe for disaster. It ensures that if their person doesn't get the nom they will be embittered and not turn out to stop Trump.
