These are those who cheer for a man who saw “very fine people on both sides” in Charlottesville, Va. These are people who see no problem with the separation of migrant families. These are people who abide by the president employing white nationalists in his administration.

I am quite frankly suspicious of the candidate who actively appeals to these people. Their continued support for Trump isn’t just some small mistake they made, like picking up a zucchini instead of a cucumber at the market.

No, their Trump support is a value statement, one that turns on the denial of other people’s rights to freedom, equality and safe existence.

How can a person appeal to me and to that person simultaneously and do so with integrity and honor?

At the same time, transformational change sounds good and smart in theory, but it simply isn’t most Trump-resisting Americans’ most urgent concern. Removing Trump is. Furthermore, the federal government is notoriously inefficient and problem-prone. It would most likely take it decades to carry out a single large-scale change and tweak it until it worked properly. It is impossible for me to believe that any candidate could manage major change in multiple areas at the same time.

This is not to say that the proposals of the progressive candidates don’t have merit. They do. Their goals are the right ones for the Democratic Party and the planet. But this election will not likely be the proving ground for these proposals.

In this cycle, it is hard to sell reorganizing the whole country to people who are simply afraid that Trump is going to destroy the whole country.

That is a reason that Tuesday night’s debate got a bit too far down into the weeds for me. Indeed, although the ability of candidates to make sustained arguments has improved and the number of people allowed on the stage has shrunk, there remains a sort of nerdy gladiator feel to them that numbs with numbers.