not advocating people be chastised, stating the choice at hand for splintered voting blocks: at the moment of truth, either set differences aside and coalesce as a way to potentially get some or maybe even most of what you want, or remain unmoved and probably get none of it. to be clear, that's not a starting point, it's an end point, once a debate or campaign has played out and it's become clear which side has advanced.but if people don't want to vote for someone, they shouldn't be chastised for it
if Dems/Labour wanna win they should have better candidates and run better campaigns
easier said than done, but that's politics. and life.
there are also cases where people who take the my-way-or-the-highway approach aren't directly affected by the bad shit that can come as a result of a GOP/Tory administration, they have the luxury of not having to compromise because it ultimately won't impact their lives. they'll still be able to afford quality healthcare come what may, so they don't feel compelled to put differences aside and do what it takes in the homestretch to defeat a GOP legislature that's trying to eliminate Obamacare/coverage of pre-existing conditions, etc. some call it "coming from a place of privilege", a notion I know you're a big fan of. /s
sure, dems/labour should run better candidates/campaigns. my point is in cases where they don't, some compromises among voters once the process has played out can result in a not-ideal-but-best-possible outcome.