"If the primaries don't turn out as you hope, will you still do everything in your power to deny Trump a second term?"
Great question. Last time the answer was NO.
"Or will you instead exaggerate your differences with the nominee " say, complain about Sanders or Warren as a Trump-style radical; or buy into the caricature of Buttigieg as a corporate tool; or retweet, with outrage added, the least enlightened things Biden or Bloomberg has ever said?"
That was a YES last time.
"If elected, every single Democratic presidential candidate would act to slow climate change, raise taxes on the rich, reduce gun deaths, expand voting rights, lower health care and education costs, protect abortion access, enforce civil-rights laws, appoint progressive judges, rebuild overseas alliances and ..."
That wasn't good enough last time; the candidate had to be "perfect" to deserve a vote.
And so here's what happened:
"Donald Trump owes his victory in the Electoral College to three states he won by the smallest number of votes: Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. So it's fair to say that the 2016 presidential election was decided by about 77,000 votes out of than 136 million ballots cast.
According to the final tallies, Trump won Pennsylvania by 0.7 percentage points (44,292 votes), Wisconsin by 0.7 points (22,748 votes), Michigan by 0.2 points (10,704 votes). If Clinton had won all three states, she would have won the Electoral College 278 to 260."
That's a .057 percent of the vote loss predicated on the candidate not being the first choice of a small percentage of voters... which amounts to those voters stroking their own preferences, their own ego, over what is a better outcome for the country.