Well, it's all over except the crying. After a beguiling nomination process in the Republican and Democratic Party primaries, things are rapidly winding down. Team R has done the nearly unthinkable and nominated the orange-faced, anti-establishment, bigot extraordinaire, infamously thin skinned reality TV star, "Teflon" Don Trump to be their party's standard-bearer. An oft-failed businessman with exactly zero experience governing, and ostensibly zero understanding of some basic principles under which the US government functions. And Team D has done nearly the opposite, and is set to nominate a well-known establishment candidate with a lengthy résumé governing, Hillary "The Inevitable" Clinton.

Or "Crooked" Hillary and "Dangerous" Donald, if you ask them what to call each other.

With a choice between the two least liked candidates in history, people on the Left and Right are feeling reluctant to vote for either. The #NeverTrump crew is frantically searching for an out by drafting someone for a third party run like Nebraskan Senator Ben Sasse, failed primary candidate John Kasich, failed presidential candidate Mitt Romney, or even Trump's fellow reality TV star and billionaire Mark Cuban. And the Left is typically disenfranchised, faced with the prospect of voting for proud moderate Hillary Clinton, a third party candidate, or abstaining entirely. To their credit, both Hillary and The Don are doing what they can to inspire people to vote against them. I've heard more than a few people say they feel forced to vote for Clinton to stop Trump, and I've heard the same about Clinton from people justifying a vote for Trump. If you asked either group, they'd probably tell you the other side is making the wrong choice, without noticing they've made the same one. Meanwhile, many of us are wondering if we can bring ourselves to vote for either major party candidate.

Ponder that choice too publicly, at least if you're on the Left, and you'll quickly learn such musing is forbidden by Democrats.

In the presidential elections I've been eligible to vote in I've always voted for Democrats--or at least against Republicans. I'm done with that thoughtless charade this year, though. My weariness isn't new. In 2004 I didn't care at all for John Kerry, but after watching as George W. Bush lied to lure the country and some of my friends into fighting unnecessary war, I was happy to cast my first vote against him. In 2008 I was an early supporter of Barack Obama's. I argued for his candidacy with family at our caucus, which Obama narrowly won, sent his campaign money, volunteered a bit, and I was excited voting for him in 2008. That excitement only lasted a month or two after January 20, 2009. In 2012 I considered voting for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, but in the end unenthusiastically voted for the lesser of the two evils. (Yes, I also voted in midterms). But in 2016 I'm evaluating my options with a candidness I haven't allowed myself in the past. That doesn't mean I won't vote for a Democrat, but it's looking less and less likely. So here we are, it's still spring and I'm already at the end of my rope talking about the fall election with Democratic Party diehards. In anticipation of continued pestering from the #UniteBlue crowd, and in the hopes it helps some other Lefties evaluate their choice for president, or prompts some partisans to ruminate on theirs, I'm going to lay out my thought process. Yes, thought process. In spite of what some dyed-in-the-wool Democrats suggest, you can apply a more thoughtful process to who you're voting for than: Are they the Democratic nominee?

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE DEMOCRATS?

"It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it," Eugene Debs.

There are a number of things, more than I can discuss here, that Leftists might want to ponder before unreflectively voting for Hillary Clinton (the same could have been said if Bernie Sanders were the nominee). From an ideological standpoint my ideal candidate of the likely options on the ballot will be Jill Stein, or someone further Left like one of several socialist candidates. There's no question I agree with them on more issues than any potential Democratic nominee. Nobody owes a political party their vote. Political parties and elected representatives owe it to The People to earn our votes. This shouldn't be a controversial or foreign concept in a country that considers itself a democratic republic, yet in this age of hyper-partisan politics, it is.

Speaking of hyper-partisan politics, let me be clear. This isn't a "Bernie or Bust" thing. That movement seems largely rooted in fandom for a candidate and fueled by a contentious primary. While I liked Bernie as far as Democratic candidates go, he never earned my full-fledged support, and any enthusiasm I had when he entered the race waned as it went on (he did get my caucus vote). First, he's no socialist. He's a New Deal Democratic capitalist who's shown no interest in democratizing control of the means of production. Second, he's failed to move past his old school class first point-of-view in a meaningful way. Time and again when he's in the limelight of a debate, a town hall, or an interview, Bernie finds his way back to discussing class no matter the issue that's been raised. When he does that on issues of race and/or gender it amounts to erasure. I have no interest in a revolution that doesn't embrace intersectionality. And no, it's not too much to ask any progressive leader to incorporate an advanced intersectional analysis into their approach. Third, he's no dove. Like Hillary, he'll continue the US drone program. He supports the wildly expensive and ineffective F-35. He talks about crushing and destroying ISIS; at times immediately after holding up a peace sign. Because you know the old hippie proverb: Peace, love, crush, and destroy. And, in spite of mastering some softer rhetoric on matters of Israel than Hillary, he still largely supports Israel's continued oppression of Palestinians. He's also only made passing reference to cutting the largesse of the defense budget, which currently consumes a whopping 54% of discretionary spending. And he's called for Edward Snowden to face trial. Sure, he voted against going to war in Iraq (both times), the Patriot Act (and its reauthorizations), but those are pretty obvious calls for any progressive to make. So he's not much more deserving of my vote than any other Democrat nominee.

The failures of late-stage capitalism necessitate big, bold ideas. And Leftists need to fight for them. The good news is there's a younger generation far less moored to party affiliation waiting to reward just such an effort. Democrats, both politicians and voters, tend to discuss the boundaries of what's possible in our current political milieu as though they're fixed. Rhetoric matters. Fighting for progressive values requires committing to the long game. The impacts from the Reagan Era go far beyond administrative accomplishments. Conservative wins reshaped the very basis of our dialogue on a variety of issues. Even today, in the face of the clear failures of trickledown economics and imperialist military pursuits, the Overton Window remains largely bound by those dynamics.

As is almost always the case, Democrats aren't without blame. With Bill Clinton at the helm, the New Democrats embrace of Third Way politics helped cement those conservative wins in place. Leftists need to win the discourse back, not continue ceding to its current restrictions. The Democratic Party has shown no interest in this fight. And frankly, Democratic voters (including me) enable their fecklessness. Bernie, for what little it's worth given my aforementioned issues with him, is talking a decent game when it comes to his limited range of big ideas, and showing a willingness to fight for them. If nothing else, I hope that's the lesson politicians on the Left take from his campaign's surprising insurgent success. One of Hillary's central campaign counterpoints to Bernie's bolder calls to action has been the promise that she's "a progressive who gets things done." But I haven't heard her offer much in the way of concrete details as to how she'll do so in the face of the same GOP obstruction President Obama has had to confront. Given her position to the Right of Obama, it seems she means operating within the parameters of Reaganomics, neoconservative foreign policy, and GOP sabotage the Democratic Party has confined itself to for decades now. If getting things done means continued US imperialism abroad and capitulation to the fanaticism of the GOP at home, I'm not sure we should be rooting for things to get done.

I could go on voicing my trepidations with Democrats, but I'll leave it here. The point is that not only are they imperfect, I have serious disagreements with how they've governed that clash with some of my core beliefs. That, to me, is worth more than enough to give some proper consideration as to whether they deserve my vote in November.

DON'T WE HAVE TO PRIORITIZE BEATING THE EVIL GOP?

For some people, it seems the only priority every four years is keeping the GOP out of the White House. That position might be rooted in fear, but it's not entirely unreasonable. Especially with Fuhrer Trump as the presumptive nominee. For me it's not so uncomplicated. Here are a few of the overarching concerns that will guide my choice of who to vote for, in no particular order...

Forwarding progressive causes. Simply and broadly put, to me this means prioritizing human rights, the quality of people's lived-experiences now, and the lived-experiences of generations to come. This might include anything from ending US imperialism to combatting climate change. Fighting regressive causes and victories. This might include anything from keeping conservative ideologues off the Supreme Court to combatting the wars on the poor and women's bodily autonomy. Ending the two party system, or at least shifting its makeup. Building a progressive coalition that pulls the two major parties to the Left on national, state, and local levels.

As you'll notice, some of these lead to potential conflict. Number one is a mixed bag. Number two compels me to help stop the election of a Republican, which might mean voting for the Democrat. And numbers three and four oblige me to do what I can to help build a progressive coalition outside of the limited paradigm of our current two parties. When the time comes to cast my ballot I'll need to balance the importance of each. Some of that balance will hinge on a few things that I have no way of knowing right now.

SOME KNOWN UNKNOWNS

Then there's the question of whether my vote will have an impact on the outcome of the election. I live in Colorado, which is usually considered a swing state. But after going blue in the last two presidential elections it's moving more solidly into the Democratic column. If it's leaning that way again, or if it doesn't seem like the outcome of Colorado will impact the end result, I'll be more inclined to vote for a third party candidate. I hope progressives who aren't in swing states and those poor souls stuck in red states will strongly consider doing the same. No longer acquiescing to the lesser evil is integral to building electoral opposition capable of challenging the capitalist, patriarchal, and white supremacist power structures that dominate US politics. Since most states divvy up votes to the electoral college on a winner take all basis, progressives who live outside swing states can vote third party without any fear of increasing the odds of a Republican moving into the White House in January 2017.

The foreboding possibility of a Trump presidency, combined with my state being close, might be enough to make me feel obliged to strategically vote for Hillary to help stop it. Trump's tiny little fingers are bad enough just having access to Twitter. Giving them access to nuclear launch keys could lead to a global disaster. And further empowering his supporters is dangerous ground to venture into. I'm sure this feeling is emphasized for me as a Jew who routinely faces the anti-Semitic ire of this crowd on social media, but I suspect Leftists can agree that it'd be a dreadfully precarious thing to embolden a group of nativist White Supremacists who feel increasingly marginalized in modern society. I also don't really buy Susan Sarandon's heightening of the contradictions argument that Trump would "bring the revolution immediately." Rather, his success is more likely to open the door to further democratically sanctioned authoritarianism. If preventing that means biting my tongue and voting for Hillary, then I might just have to do so. I'd really rather not, though. And a lot of the typical arguments as to why I should are far from bulletproof.

SCRUTINIZING THE TYPICAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST VOTING THIRD PARTY

It's a two party system and a third party won't win, so it's a waste of your vote.

The absurdity of this non-sequitur becomes clear if we ask a simple question: Do our votes only matter if they're cast for the winner of the election? If that's the case, I should've voted for Dubya in 2004. It's true that US electoral politics have two major parties by design, and that without changes to how we tally votes and the Twelfth Amendment this will remain true. But there's nothing that says those two major parties have to be the Republicans and Democrats. As things currently stand, progressives often find ourselves reluctantly allying with business friendly centrists who control the Democratic Party. By building a progressive alternative those dynamics could shift, forcing centrists to reluctantly ally with progressives to halt GOP regression, instead of the other way around. Imagine if it wasn't that Leftists morally at-odds with voting for hawkish, corporatist, moderate Democrats were expected to bite our tongues and do so to forestall a GOP win, but that moderate Dems were expected to bite theirs and vote further Left to do so. That's not an unattainable reality, but we'll never get there if the bar set for trying is an immediate electoral victory.

On top of that, if a third party like the Greens can attain five percent of the national vote it qualifies them for General Election Funding, which is an important and realistic goal. While the Green Party is imperfect (read, not socialist), it represents an actual Leftward challenge to US electoral politics. Check out the party's "Ten Key Values" here. If we wait until a third party can win a presidential election to start voting for them, we'll be waiting forever. At a certain point we need to be willing to vote with our feet and not wait for some progressive electoral bandwagon to hop on after the fight is over. One thing Bernie's insurgent success financing his campaign without corporate donors has shown, is the possibility of mounting such an effort from outside the two major parties.

Ralph Nader gave us eight years of George W. Bush.

This one drives me a little batty. Yes, Ralph took votes from Al Gore. But pinning Gore's loss on him misplaces the blame and scapegoats Leftists. This infighting only aids the Right. First and foremost, the millions of people who voted for George W. Bush are to blame for his presidency (not to mention the conservative machinery behind his rise, e.g. think tanks, talk radio, and Fox News). Next on the list of culpability is "Super Cereal" Al Gore, who lost Florida by a few hundred votes, yet failed to ask for a recount in the state, and was remarkable for his lackluster candidacy. A minor tweak here or a little extra effort there could've netted him the votes he needed to win. Somewhere down the line of fault you'll find Nader, and even further down you'll find his supporters. Yet, Nader et al. aren't just first on most Democrat's lists of who's responsible for Gore's loss in 2000, they often stand alone. Not to mention, the lesson from this debacle should have been for the Democratic Party to stop taking progressive voters for granted, not that progressives are to blame for the failures of centrism. It's not the fault of the Left that this lesson remains unlearned.

We can't risk the Supreme Court.

This is an important, but overemphasized and sometimes shortsighted subject as people weigh their votes. Believing the ideological slant of the Court is the end-all and be-all before casting your ballot is a pretty narrow way to conceive of both presidential elections and the Court. For one thing, the US legal system fails to represent large swaths of the population regardless of who sits on its highest Court. It was designed that way. To make a real dent challenging that system of oppression we need to get going on tearing it down to prepare for a ground up restructuring. Putting all your electoral decision making eggs into the Supreme Court's basket is an unfortunately popular phenomenon. Leftists need to resist the temptation to ignore broader aims at the expense of narrow ones. Our goal should be to enact radical change across our legal system, not stack SCOTUS with centrists like Merrick Garland. Achieving those broader goals requires building a more widespread and formidable Leftist movement than a presidential campaign could ever offer.

And while odds are good there will be at least one vacancy for the next president to fill, odds are even better the next administration will get to fill several. This begs the question: Can a Democrat win now and in 2020? Historic trends suggest that's unlikely, though demographic trends combined with the Republican's open embrace of bigotry might prove otherwise. But there's a case to be made that in the long-term Democrats are better off giving the GOP four years in the White House now. While I don't know if losing in the face of the preposterousness of a Donald Trump candidacy is even possible, there's a lot to be said for the necessity of prioritizing long-term wins over immediate gains. The ideological leaning of the Supreme Court is a serious concern, but Leftists can disagree about the best strategy for winning it over.

One thing the obstruction of the GOP has demonstrated beyond the pale, is that whether we want to settle for the Merrick Garlands of the world, or fight for the next Notorious RBG, winning control of the Senate is integral to making either feasible. This emphasizes the need for a filibuster proof Left-leaning majority in the Senate. Since that's unlikely to happen in 2016, the most likely route is through sweeping wins in 2020. No incumbent president is likely to rouse the support needed to carry the Democrats to such victories. This is sure to raise some eyebrows, but people who prioritize the ideological slant of the Supreme Court might, counterintuitively, want to root against a Democrat winning in 2016. On top of that, 2020 is a census year, upping its stakes significantly. It's not hard to imagine Paul Ryan coming in and taking the White House for the GOP after a third term with a Democrat at the helm.

The Democrats aren't perfect, but they're the lesser evil.

This argument is so ubiquitous I doubt most people making it even bother to consider its veracity. I didn't for a long time. It's often countered by people who contend that the two major parties are the same, which is also an intellectually dishonest construal. The two aren't the same. The GOP's unwillingness to govern, rampant anti-intellectualism, rejection of science, and embrace of extremism and outright bigotry has seen to that. But the R's and D's share at least one key similarity: They're both parties of the Ruling Class. While one party denies climate change, the other pays it lip service while failing to act on it in a way that might have much impact beyond fattening the checkbooks of "green" businesses. While one party denies xenophobia or racism exist, the other publicly denounces them, while simultaneously deporting record numbers of undocumented immigrants and supporting policies that have been detrimental to Black people and/or People of Color. While one party openly panders to banks and wealthy elites, the other quietly supports their extraction of wealth and undue influence while passing toothless reforms to hold up as trophies to their base.

The lesser evil argument is annoying, played out, and couched in fear, but there's an emotional appeal to it that's tempting to submit to. Even with the juxtaposition above the Democrats seem to qualify as the lesser evil, albeit slightly. The question worth asking, is if there's more merit to the case that the overt nature of GOP repression fuels Leftist opposition, while the friendlier face of Democratic Despots goes unnoticed and unchecked by either the Left or Right. Combine this with the Democrats failure to even attempt to advance truly progressive ideas in the face of GOP obstruction, and what seems like the lesser evil might actually be the more insidious of the two. And, consequently, not really the lesser evil at all. I'm increasingly swayed by that argument, especially in terms of the longer arc of progress. At the very least, we might take from this complexity that the only real lesser evil is working outside electoral politics. It's also important to recognize that choosing who we vote for on the basis of who's the lesser evil allows the continued creep of the Greater Evil. At some point, progressives need to break up with the Democratic Party.

Which brings me to the final argument used to browbeat Leftists into submission that I'll discuss here...

Choosing not to vote or voting third party are positions reserved for the privileged.

This argument is less common, but I've seen versions of it pop up from time to time. The basic premise is that anyone who'd consider doing anything that might aid the GOP--even indirectly--is doing so because their privilege shields them from the ill effects of a GOP administration. This is important for those of us with various privileges to reflect on. But let me pose an alternative theory. Maybe what's rooted in privilege is taking the comfortable route, and sticking with the devil you know, instead of seeking out an alliance sans devil. Maybe what's rooted in privilege is for those of us who benefit from the status quo to continue voting for it. Maybe what's rooted in privilege is for us to limit our push for progress to an establishment capitalist political party that can only be considered progressive in contrast to the wild rightwing zealotry of Republicans. A party whose horse only rides high relative to the depths of its reactionary counterpart. If you believe our system needs a revolution to rectify the racial, gender, economic, and other injustices that exist as a direct result of its structure, then the Democrats aren't the party that will help make that happen. It's a sad reality that a compromise including cuts to major social welfare programs might be more likely under a Clinton administration than a Trump one. It's no secret that the establishment GOP's primary grievances with Trump aren't his nativism, racism, misogyny, xenophobia, Islamophobia, or general bigotry, but his lack of interest cutting Social Security and Medicare.

AND SO...

I initially planned to wait to write this as an explainer of who I chose to vote for after I'd decided. I'm glad I didn't. Laying out my priorities, my reasoning, and what I'm considering has been enormously helpful and led me to places I didn't anticipate. As I started this writing I was reluctantly leaning toward voting for the Democrat as I have in the past. Now, as I come to the end I remain uncommitted, but if I had to cast my vote today it'd be for a third party. I have too many moral hang ups with the Democrats, and after allowing myself the chance to openly reflect on the logic of continuing to give them my vote in the face of the common arguments about SCOTUS, lesser evils, wasted votes, and Nader, I came away unconvinced. For too long I accepted those arguments prima facie, and even made them. Now, having examined them, I can say that for me, they struggle to hold up to scrutiny.

Building an alternative to the Democrats is never going to happen if we wait for an instantly electorally viable alternative. Radical change has always been hard fought and requires keeping an eye on the long game. Which brings me back to the most important point of all: Electoral politics need to be seen as a tool to help achieve our goals, not the goal itself. If we want to see fundamental changes to our capitalist, white supremacist, patriarchal society, like abolishing prisons, disarming the police and military, battling climate change, reparations, the recognition of the rights of indigenous people the world over, student loan debt forgiveness, publicly funded access for everyone at public colleges and universities, homes for all the unhoused, an end to poverty, wars, drug prohibition, and hunger, then we need to organize amongst ourselves and fight, not elect politicians to do so on our behalf. As a quote attributed to Howard Zinn aptly puts it: "What matters most is not who is sitting in the White House, but "who is sitting in"--and who is marching outside the White House, pushing for change." I don't want my discussion here to leave the impression presidential politics is where I think we should focus our energy. I do want it to act as a reminder that there's more to picking a candidate than the oversimplified arguments regularly made by partisans during the election season. Hopefully explaining my thought process will help other people on the Left consider their choice, and maybe even get some True Blue Democrats to at least take the time to consider that they have a choice.

It's also not like there aren't compelling strategic reasons to vote for Hillary. A vote against the GOP has been a vote against racism, classism, xenophobia, sexism, Islamophobia, and other intersections of oppression for some time now. But that's especially true this go-round. While partisans do their best to hype up the other candidate as the Bogeyman every election year, Trump truly represents a frightening blend of ignorance, hate, and authoritarianism. On top of that, his proto-fascist base of support amongst Angry White Men is a dangerous beast to feed. Hillary is eminently qualified for the job in terms of experience governing. She's malleable to prevailing trends--which means she's susceptible to the influence of activists pushing her in the right direction, Left. And electing our first woman president is long overdue and a big deal. None of that changes my fundamental ideological disagreements with her, but they are silver linings relative to Trump. And at the end of the day, assuming things continue as they are, either Donnie "Little Fingers" Trump or Hillary "The Inevitable" Clinton are going to be sworn into office next January.

There are a multitude of ways to view the coming presidential election from the Left based on individual priorities, beliefs, experiences, estimations, and predictions. I understand why a lot of people will vote for one of the two major party candidates no matter what. I do. And I don't think it's my place to tell them their choice is right or wrong. The same should be true for people who come to another conclusion and abstain from voting or vote for a third party. The problem isn't who people on the Left choose to vote for, or those who choose not to vote. The problem is those whose political engagement is limited to voting or not. The problem is a system that intentionally fosters ignorance, stifles political engagement, and disenfranchises voters and non-voters alike. The problem is a political party, with the full backing of cultural apparatuses like Fox News, ultraconservative think tanks, and talk radio dominated by cranks, that spent decades espousing racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, ableism, xenophobia, and paranoid jingoism to appeal to the basest instincts of its voters. And the problem is a political party, that represents wealthy elites, corporations, and Wall Street, bombs civilians in other countries regularly, and at times its own citizens, all while it feigns progressivism.

Let's remember to focus our ire in the right direction.